memory_recent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: the ordering guarantee and that sources/episodes/tags filters AND-combine, which an agent could otherwise assume was OR. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core identity (most recent N, newest first) front-loaded before the usage hints and the filter-combination note.

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 5-param, zero-required read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing: ordering, scope, filter interaction, and use contexts are all stated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the per-parameter schema text by specifying that the three filter parameters AND-combine, a cross-parameter semantic not derivable from individual field 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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (memories), quantity (N), and ordering semantics ('newest first — timestamp order, not relevance'). The 'not relevance' clause implicitly contrasts with memory_search, letting an agent distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names two concrete use cases ('what did I just store?' and 'catching up at the start of a session'), which is clear positive guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming memory_search as the alternative for relevance-based retrieval or stating when-not to use it, so it falls just below the top tier.

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