recall

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the transparency burden and provides useful behavioral detail: output is bounded, per-layer status is reported honestly, and project resolution defaults to the projects file with a fallback. It stops short of describing auto-layer behavior or side-effect guarantees, but recall semantics imply read-only use.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the layered pipeline is stated first, then behavioral guarantees, then parameter behavior. Every sentence contributes information beyond the schema.

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 covers the core workflow and project/layer resolution, and an output schema exists to cover return shape. However, the top_* parameters and the meaning of `auto` are left to inference, which is a gap for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains `layer` values and the `project` default, but the top_code/top_wiki/top_memory parameters are not explicitly linked to output counts, and `auto` behavior is not detailed.

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 states a specific retrieval action ('recall') over a clear resource ('project context') and defines the three layers in order (wiki → code → memory). This makes it distinguishable from the sibling ingest/learn/retire tools without needing their schemas.

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 intended use is clear: retrieve layered context for a project, optionally restricting by layer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it over write-oriented siblings.

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