recent_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the single-call efficiency, time-window scoping, and ordering, but doesn't mention pagination behavior, whether it counts as a read (safe) operation, rate limits, or what happens when limit is hit. Adequate but not rich for a read tool with no annotation support.

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?

Two compact paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds information — time window, ordering, single-call efficiency, use-case framing, and cross-reference to a sibling tool. No waste.

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?

There's an output schema present, which relieves the description of explaining return values. The tool is a straightforward filtered-list retrieval with 3 optional params, and the description covers purpose, usage, and two of three params. Could add limit/pagination semantics, but overall complete enough for this tool's complexity.

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 `days` (time window) and `account` (with reference to list_accounts for valid values), but doesn't clarify `limit` beyond its name/schema default. Partial credit given; the `days` and `account` semantics are meaningfully expanded.

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 verb+resource+scope: lists messages received in the last `days` days, newest first, in a single call. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_messages and mentions by specifying the temporal 'recent' scope and the 'newest first' ordering.

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?

Explicit use-case guidance is given ('Ideal for what did I get while I was away'), and it even references sibling tool list_accounts for how to scope by account, implicitly distinguishing itself from account-level operations. However it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs search_messages), though the ideal-use framing is strong.

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