cleanuparr_list_recent_strikes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly aligns with that without contradiction. It adds the behavioral constraint that the count is capped at 50 by the API, which is useful beyond the annotation. No other behavioral traits are disclosed, but the cap is a meaningful addition.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and a key constraint. No fluff, no redundant repetition of the tool name, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and an API limitation. It lacks a definition of 'recent' (e.g., time window), but the output schema and read-only annotation fill in enough context for a basic list operation.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description mentions 'count' and its API cap, which gives some semantic meaning, but it does not explicitly state that 'count' controls the number of strikes returned. It leaves the fundamental meaning to inference, though the context makes it likely.

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 the action ('List recent strikes') and the resource. It distinguishes from 'cleanuparr_list_strikes' by adding 'recent', but does not explicitly contrast them, so it slightly misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage context is implied through the word 'recent', suggesting this is for recent strikes as opposed to a full list. However, there is no explicit alternative mention or guidance on when to choose this tool over 'cleanuparr_list_strikes' or other strike-related tools.

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