get_recent_attempts

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. It does not say how 'recent' is bounded, whether results are capped, whether authentication is required, or how the limit interacts with the default of 5.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and this is a simple one-parameter read. However the limit semantics and the meaning of 'recent' are left entirely unstated, which is a real gap for an agent choosing a value.

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?

One parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The phrase 'most recent' hints at bounded recency but gives no syntax, range, or default behavior, so the schema's own default=5 is the only guidance available.

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 ('retrieve') and resource ('the user's most recent LeetCode attempts'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling get_attempt_history, which weakens it slightly against the 5 bar.

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?

No indication of when to prefer this over get_attempt_history or search_interview_memory, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must guess the boundary between 'recent' and full history.

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