What have I already done in this run?

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds important behavioral detail: it separates succeeded, in-flight, failed, and unknown outcomes, and flags unknown outcomes as the only category that can hurt the caller. It also discloses the relative cost of listing the same effects, which is valuable for an agent optimizing context usage.

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 front-loaded with the core instruction, then explains return categories, safety semantics, and cost — all in a compact, well-organized block. Every sentence adds operational value, and the warning about unknown outcomes is placed where it matters.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what categories of results to expect and how to interpret them. It covers when to call the tool, what it returns, what to avoid repeating, and why the unknown category is important — more than enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the description references the run id's origin ('the run id you passed to ratchet_begin_effect'), adding a small linkage beyond the schema. This is useful but does not substantially extend the parameter meaning; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'recall the work already gated under a run id.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the broader listing tools by focusing on the run-level view and enumerating the exact outcome categories returned.

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 explicitly says to call this FIRST when resuming a task after restart, handoff, or context compaction, and warns against doing anything that might repeat prior work. This gives an agent a clear trigger condition and operational precedence.

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