Get Recent Items

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns recently added items, honors a limit, and can target either the default library or another one specified by library_id and library_type. It does not go deeper (e.g., sort order, freshness, pagination), but the added scope is meaningful.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a short 'Args:' block and a clear library-targeting rule. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with three optional parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns, how to control the result count, and how to target a specific library. No critical information is missing.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter-semantics burden. It does: 'limit: Maximum number of items to return (default 10)' adds meaning to the limit parameter, and it explains the coupled relationship between library_id and library_type ('Pass both ... omit both'), which is not evident from the schema alone. All three parameters receive useful semantic clarification.

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 and resource: 'Get recently added items from your Zotero library.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_unfiled_items, get_item_details, and search_library by focusing specifically on recent additions. The purpose is immediately understandable and not a tautology of the title.

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 implies usage: call this when you need recently added items from Zotero. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as search_library, get_unfiled_items, or get_item_details. The library targeting guidance ('Pass both library_id and library_type... omit both to use the configured default') is parameter usage, not tool-selection guidance.

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