list_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a read operation, that results are newest-first, the retrieval scope, and that candidates are excluded. It does not explain limit behavior, pagination, or permissions, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 short and front-loads the key operation with "READ." It is dense but mostly earned, though the parenthetical scope phrasing is telegraphic and slightly hard to parse.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers ordering, scope, and candidate exclusion. It still omits limit semantics and any sibling routing guidance, leaving clear but not severe gaps.

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?

There is one parameter, limit, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains its meaning. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantics beyond the bare schema property.

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 states a specific read operation and identifies the resource as memories, with ordering "Newest memories first." It also clarifies scope: current project, linked projects, global, and all projects outside a project. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings such as search_memories, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by "READ" and "Newest memories first"; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not point to search_memories or list_projects as alternatives, though the scope and candidate exclusion give some context.

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