knowmind_list_recent

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, lowering the bar. The description additionally discloses the sorting key, the corpus identity, an important exclusion ('graph-only entities without a timestamp do not appear'), and the cross-tool discrepancy ('count intentionally differs from stats.memories') — the kind of nuance that prevents an agent from misinterpreting the result.

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?

Three sentences with zero wasted words: front-loaded purpose and ordering, then usage guidance, then behavioral caveats and scope. Every sentence earns its place, there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations, and the critical sibling routing appears early.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool this is nearly complete: annotations carry safety, the schema covers k entirely, and the description covers ordering, corpus, exclusion behavior, and permission requirements. The only minor gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not spell out the fields per returned entry; agents can partially infer them from the size of the data but a small hint would be fully closed.

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% — the single parameter k is fully documented in the input schema with range and default, so the description carries no parameter-meaning burden. The description does not add new semantics for k beyond what the schema already states, making baseline 3 appropriate. This is acceptable, not strong.

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?

Identifies a specific verb and resource — listing the most recently created documents/memories — with the ordering semantics ('newest first by created_at') and corpus scope ('same corpus that recall searches'). It also names the sibling it is not ('use knowmind_recall when you already know what you are looking for'), so an agent can discriminate among the 12 siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('review what was just stored or confirm a write landed') and an explicit alternative-route rule ('use knowmind_recall when you already know what you are looking for'). Also supplies the permission precondition ('read scope is sufficient') so the agent knows it does not need write credentials.

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