hearthsmith_nags_recent

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It transparently implies a read-only retrieval ('what ... said recently') and adds that each result includes the driving decision, but it does not disclose ordering, filtering semantics, or whether the call has any side effects. This is a minor gap for a simple read tool.

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 short sentence with no filler and places the core idea first. It is concise, though slightly cryptic due to the blacksmith metaphor.

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?

With one optional parameter and an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it leaves the meaning of 'nags' and the n parameter implicit, and it does not orient the agent against the sibling tools, so completeness is adequate but not strong.

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%, and the description does not mention the sole parameter n. The name and default hint suggest it is a count, but the description fails to clarify whether n limits the number of results, a time window, or pagination.

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 conveys that the tool retrieves the blacksmith's recent statements (nags) and associates them with the decision that prompted them, which is a clear resource and action even though phrased as a question rather than an imperative. It differentiates from the tasks_* siblings by focusing on the blacksmith's communications/nags rather than task state.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as hearthsmith_tasks_list or hearthsmith_tasks_done, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use must be inferred from the tool name and context.

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