recall_and_replan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that prior state is recalled and fed into a new plan, but it does not disclose whether this modifies or replaces anything, whether it is a read-only operation, what side effects occur, or what the output looks like.

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 no filler and the primary action comes first, which is efficient. However, it relies on unexplained domain jargon and is so brief that it sacrifices clarity, making it only adequate structure-wise.

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 description communicates the basic operation but is far from complete for a tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It lacks parameter mapping, expected inputs, output behavior, and prerequisites, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke the tool confidently.

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%, so the description must explain the two required parameters, query and k. It does not mention either parameter at all. An agent cannot determine what values to pass, especially k, which has no reasonable default meaning from its name or the description.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Recall', with a clear resource, 'prior state from both chains', and an action, 'feed it into a new Algernon plan'. It is not a tautology and conveys a distinct recall-and-replan purpose, though terms like 'both chains' and 'Algernon plan' are unexplained.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as recall, remember, govern, or orchestrate_and_record. The intended use is only implied by the description, not stated, and there are no exclusion conditions or alternatives mentioned.

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