Recall a project

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so 'Read-only' is redundant. The description earns credit for disclosing non-structured behavior: the return payload contents (Capsule + read-next list + superseded/expired decisions) and the no-match failure mode that returns an error listing existing projects. It does not cover freshness, pagination, or auth, but those are minor here.

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?

One information-dense sentence, front-loaded with the tool's role before its return contents. Every clause earns its place, though the multiple em-dash-free clauses make it slightly run-on and harder to scan than a two-sentence split would be.

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With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so: Capsule, read-next list, superseded/expired decisions, and the no-match error. For a single-parameter read tool with supporting annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Project name, id, or trigger word'. The description's 'Query by project name, id, or a trigger word' restates that verbatim, adding no new syntax or matching rules (e.g., how trigger words resolve). Baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('returns its Capsule ... plus the read-next list') and frames the tool's role as 'the entry point before working on any project'. That framing lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like search and list_projects without opening a schema.

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 entry point before working on any project' is an explicit when-to-use statement, and the error behavior ('when nothing matches, the error lists the projects that exist') implicitly routes discovery to list_projects. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use recall, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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