memory_recent

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that results are limited to recently updated memories and that the tool is a non-mutating list operation, but it does not mention ordering details, limits, or that no writes occur. The verb 'List' implies read-only behavior, but more explicit transparency would be stronger.

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?

The description is two focused sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the usage context appears in the second sentence, making it quick for an agent to parse and act on.

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?

The tool has only two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description is reasonably complete for a simple list operation. However, because there are no annotations, the description could more fully address what 'agent' means in this context and how the limit affects results. It provides adequate but not thorough guidance.

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%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. Neither 'agent' nor 'limit' is mentioned, and the description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names, defaults, and enum values already present in the schema. The tool is simple enough that the schema partially covers meaning, but the description misses the opportunity to explain filtering or limiting behavior.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'most recently updated memories from the shared Notion memory,' clearly identifying the tool's function. The phrase 'what was learned/saved lately' reinforces the recency dimension, which differentiates it from siblings like memory_get, memory_search, and memory_add.

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 second sentence, 'Use to get context about what was learned/saved lately,' provides a clear intended use case. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use this tool, but the stated use case is enough to guide an agent toward this tool for recency-oriented context.

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