recall_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions date-bounded recall and the since_last_reflection feature, but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or any rate limits. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: first states action, second provides usage guidance. 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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain what 'insights' are, how to use limit or domain, what the return format is, or any behavioral constraints. More context is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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?

The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Two parameters (domain, limit) lack schema descriptions, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining their roles. The since_last_reflection mention is already in the schema, so no new semantic value is added.

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 action ('recall') and resource ('insights from chronicle'), and adds date-bounded recall capability. It distinguishes from siblings like recall_exchange and recall_reflections by focusing on 'insights' and mentioning the since_last_reflection feature.

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 description provides a specific use case ('what has happened since I last looked up?') and recommends since_last_reflection over raw dates. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving room for confusion.

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