ps_corpus_recent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses that results are ordered by publication recency. It says nothing about pagination, the default limit behavior, auth/config prerequisites, or what the returned items represent.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the coverage gaps elsewhere rather than being a virtue in isolation.

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, but with zero annotation coverage, four undocumented parameters, and no usage guidance, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer about how to call this correctly.

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% and four parameters exist, so the description must compensate; it only vaguely gestures at source filtering (likely source_type). The limit, config_path, and periscope_path parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the 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?

The phrase names the resource (items in the corpus), the ordering/scope (most recently published), and an optional narrowing (one source), which implicitly separates it from the search sibling. However, there is no explicit verb and no direct naming of ps_corpus_search as the alternative, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance at all, and no mention of when to prefer ps_corpus_search or ps_filter_items over this tool. The only hint is 'optionally one source', which gestures at filtering but does not tell the agent when that option is appropriate.

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