recall_decisions

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

With no annotations, the description discloses ordering, filtering, and a prerequisite but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe potential side effects, error cases, or idempotency.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the main action and parameters, followed by a prerequisite. No redundant information.

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 description adequately covers core functionality and prerequisites. Given the existence of an output schema, it does not need to detail return values. However, it could mention behavior when the project does not exist.

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 schema has 0% coverage, so the description adds meaning by explaining that 'since' is an ISO 8601 date filter and 'project' is a named project, but it does not elaborate on the project name format or provide additional constraints.

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 specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'decisions recorded against a named project'. It also includes ordering ('newest first') and optional filtering, distinguishing it from sibling tools like recall_entity or record_fact.

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 implies usage for retrieving decisions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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