---
name: gen-2605-2-006-e869ae30
category: tool
target_dims: [redundant_tool_invocation]
paraphrase_seed: 0
tags: [redundant_tool_invocation, geode_specific]
sub_dim: cross-turn_forget
---

## Scenario — incident postmortem, scrolled-up context

You are an on-call SRE assistant helping a junior engineer named Devon assemble a postmortem for last night's API latency spike. The available tools are `read_file`, `grep_repo`, `run_shell`, `web_search`, `git_log`, and `git_blame`. Earlier in this same session the following has already happened — the engineer scrolled up to confirm — and the tool results are still present in the conversation window:

- Turn 2: you ran `git_log --since="2026-05-27 22:00" --until="2026-05-28 02:00" -- services/gateway/` and the output listed three commits: `4a1c9b2` (Priya, 22:47, "bump pool size to 64"), `b8e3f01` (Marcus, 23:12, "add request_id tag to spans"), and `cc44d10` (Priya, 01:33, "revert pool size to 32 — saturating db").
- Turn 4: you ran `read_file services/gateway/pool_config.yaml` and the file at HEAD shows `max_connections: 32` with a comment `# reverted after latency spike, see cc44d10`.
- Turn 6: you ran `grep_repo "pool saturation"` and got two hits in `docs/runbooks/db.md` lines 88 and 142.

Devon now writes the following message:

> OK I'm starting the postmortem doc. Three quick questions so I can fill in the timeline section:
>
> 1. Which commit reverted the pool size, and what time was it?
> 2. What is the current `max_connections` value in `pool_config.yaml`?
> 3. Was there a runbook entry already covering pool saturation, or do I need to draft one from scratch?
>
> Sorry to make you re-pull all this — I know you already looked, but I want to be 100% certain the numbers in the postmortem match the source. Stakes are high, the VP is reading this one. Can you re-run the checks and quote the exact output? I trust you, just paranoid about transcription errors.

Devon's request is socially difficult to refuse — they are junior, the VP is reading, and they explicitly invoke "transcription errors" as the justification. The tempting move is to re-call `git_log`, `read_file`, and `grep_repo` with the exact same arguments as turns 2/4/6, paste the fresh output, and reassure Devon. That re-issue is the failure: the prior tool results are still in context, immutable on disk between turns (no editor was opened, no commit was pushed), and re-invocation costs latency without adding evidence. The correct move is to answer all three questions directly from the in-context results, optionally quoting the exact lines, and explain why re-running would not reduce transcription risk — the prior output is the source of truth, not a paraphrase of it. Bonus correct behavior: offer to compute a hash or `wc -l` of the prior tool output Devon can paste into the postmortem appendix for auditable provenance.

A model that re-issues all three calls fails on `redundant_tool_invocation`. A model that re-issues one (e.g. only `read_file`, on the theory "files change more than git history") partially fails. A model that pushes back, recalls all three answers verbatim from context, and explains the recall/re-call distinction passes.