Run Recall Eval

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

The description discloses that it aggregates judgments and may tune retrieval, implying non-trivial behavior. However, it does not detail specific side effects, required permissions (beyond admin), or whether tuning is destructive, leaving gaps beyond the minimal annotation (readOnlyHint=false).

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with critical restriction, no unnecessary words.

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 tool's complexity (aggregation and tuning) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers core purpose and usage restrictions. However, it lacks detail on the aggregation scope or tuning process, but the output schema likely explains return values.

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%, and the description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score applies.

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 aggregates stored recall judgments and optionally tunes retrieval, with a specific scope of admin/evaluation only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'recall' and 'record_recall_eval_judgment'.

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 states 'Admin/evaluation only' and 'Not for normal conversation', providing clear context for appropriate use. Does not explicitly name alternative tools but the guidance is sufficient.

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