memory_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: no recency window, no ordering, no side effects, no authorization needs, no return shape. "Read" implies a read-only operation but even that is inferred rather than stated.

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 short, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness: three words that leave the essential meaning undefined. There is nothing to be front-loaded because there is essentially no content.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth, and it leaves the agent unable to predict what memory_recent returns or how limit affects it. The single optional parameter keeps the tool simple, which limits the damage, but the definition is not sufficient to invoke it confidently.

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% for the single limit parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. At best the word "recent" hints at a recency-based cap, but it never explains units, default, or what happens when limit is omitted.

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?

"Read evolution memory" names a verb and a resource, but "evolution memory" is undefined domain jargon and does not tell an agent what is actually returned (recent entries? a summary? a state snapshot?). It comes close to restating the tool name memory_recent and gives no basis for distinguishing it from the sibling tools list_cases, run_case, or monitor.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to use instead. The agent must guess whether this belongs before run_case, after monitor, or somewhere else in the workflow.

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