memory_recent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavioral traits: timestamp ordering, compact vs. verbose output, AND-combined filtering, and optionality of filters. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or max N, but the disclosed behavior goes well beyond a bare list.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the main action and ordering, followed by use cases and parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or filler.

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 listing tool with no required parameters, the description covers ordering, filters, verbosity, and use cases. An output schema exists, so return-format details are structured elsewhere. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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%, yet the description explicitly explains every parameter: 'N' for n, the filter names and AND-combination for sources/episodes/tags, and 'verbose=True for full per-entry metadata' for verbose. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('memories'), and clarifies the ordering ('newest first — timestamp order, not relevance'), which directly distinguishes it from relevance-based search tools like memory_search and memory_recall. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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?

It provides concrete use cases ('what did I just store?', 'catching up at the start of a session') and implicitly excludes relevance-based retrieval with 'not relevance.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a 'when not to use' statement, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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