recap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the default window is the last 24 hours for a project versus the full history for a session, and it flags warnings such as tests that passed only after being edited. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, but the nature of a 'recap' makes that clear.

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?

It is a single long sentence densely packed with nested parentheticals and em-dash asides, which makes it hard to parse on first read. Front-loading is decent ('What agents actually did'), and every clause carries content, but the run-on structure undercuts readability.

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 no-output-schema, no-annotation, three-optional-parameter read tool, the description sufficiently covers what content is returned and the scope defaults. It stops short of fully spelling out how warnings or session defaults interact, but nothing critical to calling it correctly 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their defaults, making 3 the baseline. The description only echoes the project/session scoping and adds the 24-hour default window, adding little beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource (agent activity) and enumerates exactly what the recap contains: what each agent was asked, one-sentence summaries, warnings, test-failure reasons, and changed files. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never names or contrasts any sibling (today, agents_now, check_my_work), so an agent must infer the distinction itself.

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 gives scoping context: 'For a project (default: this one, the last 24 hours) or one session (all of it).' That implies when each parameter applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to the alternatives among the siblings, so usage is only implied.

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