lcm_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, yet it only states that results are recent activity across sessions. It does not clarify read-only/non-destructive behavior, output shape, pagination or limit behavior, or what 'activity' includes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short for a simple two-parameter tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps elsewhere rather than wasting words.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, two optional parameters, and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it should do more to explain what recent activity is returned and how the tool differs from its siblings.

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%, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'time window' loosely maps to the hours parameter but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 identifies a scope—recent activity across sessions within a time window—but 'activity' is vague and it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as recall, grep, or status. An agent can tell it is a recent-data tool, but not precisely what data or operation is involved.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus lcm_recall, lcm_grep, or lcm_status. The time-window framing implies a recency use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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