list_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The description states it lists memories and mentions optional filters and default scope, which indicates a read-only operation without saying so explicitly. It does not mention side effects, ordering details beyond 'newest', or any error conditions. Given the lack of annotations, this is minimum viable transparency but not comprehensive.

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 places the core purpose ('List newest memories') first, followed by optional filters and default behavior. Every word contributes value, and there is 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?

The tool is relatively simple with 3 params and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it does not cover the 'limit' parameter semantics or provide any usage guidance relative to siblings. While it captures the essentia, the lack of parameter documentation for one param and missing context on when to use it makes it only minimally complete.

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 must compensate. It explains the 'kind' filter (by kind) and 'project' (by exact project name), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving its semantics (e.g., maximum number of results, its default) to the schema's type and default. This partial coverage warrants a score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('newest memories'), and immediately specifies the optional filters (kind, exact project name) and the default behavior (all projects). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling memory tools like 'search_memory' or 'recall' by focusing on recency rather than search criteria.

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 usage (when you need the most recent memories) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as 'search_memory' or 'entry_history'. It provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or what distinguishes it from siblings beyond the 'newest' aspect. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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