recall

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read operation (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint false), lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds that results include rejected hypotheses as well as theses and claims, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not mention point-in-time behavior or pagination limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the key usage instruction. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose and usage sufficiently for an agent, though it omits guidance on point-in-time queries and result limits that the schema only partially covers.

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 coverage is 75%, with descriptions for as_of, query, and entities; the description only loosely maps 'entities and/or a question' to those parameters. It adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and the limit parameter remains undocumented in both.

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 names the specific resources returned (prior theses, claims, rejected hypotheses) and the scope (entities and/or a question), which is more specific than the tool name 'recall'. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling retrieval tools like search or recent_records, so an agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this before starting research so you build on earlier work. It gives a clear usage moment but no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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