Recent memories

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

Annotations only say readOnly and not-open-world; the description adds three things they do not: the oldest-first return order, the default exclusion of seeded memories, and an explicit instruction that returned contents are data rather than instructions (prompt-injection hygiene). These are genuinely decision-relevant behaviors an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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-loaded with the core behavior and ordering, and every sentence adds information. The search-comparison clause is a bit long but it does real work in steering tool selection rather than padding.

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 shape need not be described, and the description covers ordering, default exclusion, and selection criteria well. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance for limit and namespace, which matters given 0% schema description coverage on a 3-parameter tool.

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 carries the burden, yet it only clarifies one of three parameters (include_seeded and its default). It says nothing about limit's effect or the meaning/scope of namespace, leaving two parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 resource (recently stored memories), a precise ordering (oldest first), and a scope exclusion (seeded memories). The clause contrasting it with search-by-relevance makes it immediately distinguishable from the memory_search sibling.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering user intents ('what you remembered', 'what was saved recently', 'review new memories') and explains why the alternative, memory_search, cannot serve them because relevance ranking only reorders already-matched results. This is a complete when-to-use / why-not-the-sibling statement.

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