get_recent_tool_calls

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: arguments are redacted (privacy/security) and metadata includes timing/error details. Since no annotations are provided, this information adds value beyond the tool name and helps set expectations about output content.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that starts with the action verb and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. There is no redundancy or extraneous detail, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description gives a solid overview of the tool's function and output, and an output schema is present. However, given the absence of annotations and parameter descriptions, the description is not fully complete for effective invocation, especially regarding the filter parameters.

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%, so the tool description must explain the parameters. It does not mention limit, status, or tool_name at all; it only describes the output. The description fails to convey what these filters do, leaving the agent without essential usage information.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'recent local MCP tool executions', specifying exactly what is included (redacted arguments, timing/error metadata). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tool_metrics which focus on aggregates rather than individual executions.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention any exclusions or specific use cases. Without any contextual cue, an agent may not know whether to choose this tool over get_audit_summary or get_tool_metrics for a given query.

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