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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds value by specifying exactly what is returned (most recent tool calls, the computer each ran on, success state, and duration) and the 'recent activity' framing. It does not mention ordering or default limits, but these are minor for a simple read operation.

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 sentences, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the usage guidance, and the second specifies the return content. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 output schema exists, the tool is read-only with all-optional parameters, and the description covers purpose and return content, it is largely complete. The only minor gap is the lack of a precise definition of 'recent' (e.g., time window or event count), but this is not critical for invocation.

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%: the `tool`, `limit`, and `device` parameters are each fully described in the schema, including the valid range and default for `limit`. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the general 'recent tool calls' theme, so the baseline 3 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 uses specific verbs ('recover', 'answer what was just done') tied to a concrete resource ('recent tool calls') and states the returned fields ('computer', 'success state', 'duration'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like event_log, which concern system events rather than tool call history.

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 opening clause 'Use this when you need to recover recent ReMCP activity or answer what was just done' provides a clear, actionable context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the use case is specific enough that an agent can route correctly without ambiguity.

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