episodes_recent

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the "GLOBAL across all projects" scope, which could be surprising for users expecting project isolation, and the time-desc ordering. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, pagination, or what happens when n exceeds the max, though those are partially covered by the schema.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core functionality, then adds the optional filter and global scope. Every clause adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters and a rich output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, scope, and ordering. The annotations and schema fill in safety and parameter details, making this sufficiently complete for a correct 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 description coverage is 100% (n and session_id are fully described). The description only reiterates "Optional session_id filter," which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify edge cases like n=0 or negative values, but the schema already provides defaults and bounds.

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 verb "Returns" with a specific resource: "N most-recent user-turn records," including ordering (time-desc) and an optional filter. It also distinguishes itself by declaring "GLOBAL across all projects," setting it apart from project-scoped siblings.

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 description implicitly communicates when to use it (for recent user-turn records globally) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives might be better (e.g., memory_search for semantic recall, events_query for event logs). It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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