recall

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the tool reads from both chains, merges them, and orders newest first, which is useful behavioral context. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does not mention side effects, return format, or edge cases, but 'read' suggests a non-destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with the verb and core behavior front-loaded. It contains no wasted words, though it leaves key terms like 'BOTH chains' undefined, which slightly reduces clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The definition omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and what 'chains' refers to, and there is no output schema to compensate. Given its role as a context-retrieval tool with optional parameters, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'actor' or 'limit' parameters. Since there are two parameters and neither is clarified, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads and merges prior context from both chains and orders it newest first. It names a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like recall_and_replan or remember.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'so the AI need not re-derive it' implies the tool should be used when prior context is needed to avoid recomputing it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as recall_and_replan.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.