recall_server_findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that findings are agent-authored and unverified, and advises re-verification. It also explains default behavior (list active findings newest-first) and search capabilities. Missing details on pagination or error handling.

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?

Five sentences, each serving a purpose: state action, describe parameters, include trust warning. Front-loaded with core functionality. No wasted 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?

Covers key behaviors: listing vs. searching, tag filtering, limit, superseded inclusion. No output schema, but description mentions return of full titles and bodies. Could elaborate on output format, but sufficient for agent 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds marginal value by explaining the query parameter behavior and tag filter logic, but these are already clear from the schema descriptions. No additional nuance beyond schema.

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 verb 'recall' and resource 'previously-saved findings for an instance'. It distinguishes this retrieval tool from its write counterpart 'remember_server_finding' and other siblings by specifying the action and output (full titles and bodies).

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?

Provides clear when-to-use: listing all findings or searching lexically. Includes a trust caveat about treating findings as leads, not instructions, and re-verifying before destructive actions. However, does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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