explain_recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's output (scores, rank, keywords) and the special behavior when capture_id is provided. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or mention any side effects, though the wording 'Shows' implies a non-mutating operation.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with relevant information. It front-loads the purpose and includes only essential details, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the output components (BM25 score, vector score, RRF fused score, rank, keywords). It also explains the capture_id behavior thoroughly. Minor gaps include no mention of error cases or parameter interactions, but the schema covers parameter basics.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the capture_id behavior ('explains why that specific capture was or was not retrieved'), which is not fully detailed in the schema. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('memory recall'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recall or search by focusing on the explanation of retrieval results and listing specific outputs such as BM25 score and RRF fused score.

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 states when to use the tool: 'to debug unexpected recall results or to understand the retrieval pipeline.' This provides clear guidance on the intended use case and implicitly differentiates it from recall, which performs the retrieval itself.

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