recall_context

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

No annotations provided. Description adds temporal validity note about invalid_at dates, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other traits like read-only nature, permissions, or result format. With no annotations, the description carries burden but only partially fulfills it.

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?

Description is relatively concise with two sentences plus a critical note on temporal validity. It front-loads the purpose and use case efficiently, though the note could be integrated more smoothly.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and sibling tools, the description provides adequate context for core purpose and usage guidelines. However, it lacks parameter details and more thorough behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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% and description does not explain parameters. While 'query' and 'limit' are intuitive, the description adds no guidance on their usage, formats, or constraints. For a tool with no parameter descriptions in schema, this is a notable gap.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches meeting transcripts for client/stakeholder statements. It differentiates from siblings like recall_decisions by focusing on 'context' rather than decisions. Verb 'search' and resource 'meeting transcripts' are specific.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: to find origins of asks, promises, or requirements before acting on second-hand info. Does not specify when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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