mem_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't state that the operation is read-only, safe, or idempotent, nor does it mention any ordering or pagination details.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the main action. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'observations' are, the meaning of 'recent' (time window), or the return format. For a tool with 3 optional parameters, more context is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by mentioning 'scoped to one project or persisted session', but does not explicitly describe the `limit` parameter or the semantics of `session_id` and `project_key`. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory.

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 clearly states 'Return recent observations' with optional scoping by project or session. This verb+resource+scope pattern distinguishes it from siblings like mem_get (specific observation) and mem_search (query-based).

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 for retrieving recent observations with optional filters, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that mem_get is better for a single known observation.

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