memory_recent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals key behaviors: newest-first ordering, timestamp-based rather than relevance-based ordering, and AND-combination of filters. It does not describe return-value details, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 with no filler: behavior first, use cases second, filter semantics last. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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 an optional-parameter list tool, this is complete: it gives use cases, ordering semantics, and filter combination behavior. All parameters are self-documented in the schema, and an output schema exists for return-value details.

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 adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that sources, episodes, and tags AND-combine, and by establishing the ordering semantics that affect how the n parameter is interpreted.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the N most recently stored memories, newest first.' It also distinguishes itself from relevance-based search by explicitly saying 'timestamp order, not relevance,' which separates it from sibling tools like memory_search.

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?

The description gives concrete use cases: 'what did I just store?' and catching up at the start of a session. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for relevance search, but 'not relevance' implies the contrast, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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