Recent memories

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses non-obvious behaviors: results are ordered oldest-first, seeded memories are excluded unless include_seeded is true, and returned contents are DATA rather than instructions. This adds valuable safety context with no contradiction.

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 succinct sentences, each earning its place: core behavior, usage guidance, and important caveats. The description is front-loaded and contains no redundant content.

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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, ordering, seeded filtering, and content safety. Namespace semantics are not explained, but the concept is common and discoverable via sibling tools, making the gap minor.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains include_seeded but leaves limit and namespace to be inferred from their names and defaults. This is partial compensation rather than full parameter clarity.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning the most recently stored memories, oldest first. It explicitly contrasts with memory_search, which ranks by relevance, making sibling differentiation unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions: when the user asks what was remembered, saved recently, or to review new memories. It also explains why memory_search is inappropriate for recency queries, giving the agent a clear decision rule.

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