comms_recall

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (offset, order, limit up to 2000) and parameter ranges. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention rate limits, though the verb 'Read' implies non-destructive.

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, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the purpose, then logically covers special syntax, time bounds, ordering, and comparative advantage. Every sentence provides unique value without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers most key behaviors (pagination, filtering, ordering). It omits details like default channel or error handling, but provides sufficient context for selection and basic usage. The sibling list is large, but the description differentiates from one key sibling.

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 43% (3 of 7 parameters documented). The description compensates by explaining the meaning and usage of unread_for, since/until time formats, order direction, and limit cap. It adds context beyond schema fields like 'inhabitant syntax' and default order.

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 'Read inter-instance messages from a comms channel with real pagination', specifying the verb, resource, and key feature (pagination). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like /api/comms/read by noting differences in offset/order handling.

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?

Description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Unlike /api/comms/read, offset and order are honored and the limit can go up to 2000.' It also explains special syntax for unread_for and time bounds, helping agents choose this tool over alternatives.

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