Recently updated entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the newest-first ordering, the optional single-scope restriction, and the 'Read-only' confirmation. It does not add anything about pagination or result size behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and ordering in the first sentence, then the usage guidance, then the alternative routing. Efficient overall, though the trailing 'Read-only' sentence is redundant given the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, all three parameters are documented, and the description covers purpose, timing, scoping, and alternative selection. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 limit, scope, and include_archived are already fully documented in the schema, including the clamping range and the scope-locked override. The description's 'optionally within one scope' adds nothing beyond that, 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 and resource ('List the most recently created or updated memory entries') plus the ordering guarantee ('newest first'). An agent can distinguish it from memory_search, memory_list, and memory_events without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger scenario ('catch up on what changed lately, start of a session, after another agent worked') and routes to three named alternatives with the exact condition that selects each (content lookup, unordered browse, change attribution). Nothing is left to inference.

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