rememb_recent

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

With no annotations provided, the description does carry the safety burden by declaring 'Safe, read-only', and it discloses the newest-first ordering. However, it says nothing about whether soft-deleted entries are excluded by default, how max_chars truncation behaves, or how results are paginated, leaving real behavioral gaps for a zero-annotation 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?

Three short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and zero padding. Safety and usage each get one clause, so every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-required-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, ordering, and a use case adequately. Minor gaps remain around deleted-entry defaults and truncation semantics, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 100%, so all five parameters (limit, store, section, max_chars, include_deleted) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the ordering claim, not parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Return recently updated entries') plus the sort order ('newest first'), which cleanly separates it from rememb_read, rememb_search, and rememb_list_tags. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

'Useful for catching up on what changed since the last session' implies a scenario, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as rememb_search for keyword lookup or rememb_read for a known entry. Usage is implied, not prescribed.

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