bicameral_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what data it returns (lessons, edits, track record) and the source file, but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any error behavior. The read-only nature is implied by 'recall' but not stated, and there is no mention of pagination or output format, which an output schema might cover but is not referenced in the description.

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 sentence that front-loads the core content (what it recalls) and ends with a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has a low complexity and an output schema exists, which likely covers return format. However, the description omits any explanation of the 'workspace' parameter and does not provide details on the structure or volume of the recalled data. It also lacks explicit behavioral notes (e.g., read-only). Given the presence of an output schema, the description is partially complete but still leaves gaps in parameter semantics and behavioral disclosure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references 'a task' but does not explain the required 'task' parameter or the optional 'workspace' parameter. The description fails to clarify what 'workspace' means or how it affects the recall, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for invoking the tool with correct parameter values.

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 tool recalls lessons, similar accepted edits, and routing track record, plus lessons from a specific file. The verb 'recall' and the resource (lessons/edits/track record) make the purpose unambiguous, and it is distinct from siblings like bicameral_status or bicameral_review_diff, which have different functions.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call before planning,' which gives a clear temporal directive. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it lacks the 'when-not/alternatives' component needed for a 5.

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