ctx_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lacks any mention of safety (e.g., read-only or destructive), performance considerations, or whether results are ordered (e.g., by recency). The agent cannot infer if this is a safe 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?

The description is a single sentence, no filler words. It front-loads the action ('Get recent memories and latest session summary'). However, the sentence could be more compact by removing 'for continuity between sessions' if not necessary for clarity, but it's still appropriate length.

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 tool complexity (1 parameter, 12 sibling tools), the description lacks explanation of the 'limit' parameter, return value (even though an output schema exists), and ordering semantics. The tool's purpose is fairly simple, so a score of 2 reflects minimal completeness gaps: missing param semantics and behavioral transparency.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the single parameter 'limit'. The description does not explain this parameter beyond its default value of 10. No information is given about what 'limit' controls (e.g., number of memories, number of summaries, or something else).

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 tool retrieves 'recent memories and latest session summary' for maintaining continuity between sessions. While it uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent memories... session summary'), it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ctx_search or ctx_get, but the 'recent' and 'latest' qualifiers imply distinct scope.

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 implies this tool is for continuity between sessions, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus asking for specific memories via ctx_get or searching via ctx_search. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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