recent_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool shows, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires special permissions. The agent cannot infer that this is a safe, non-destructive action.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. No words are wasted, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 has two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the parameters do, what the output format looks like, or any behavioral traits. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool reliably.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (cwd and limit) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention these parameters at all, failing to add any meaning about their purpose, format, or required values. The agent has no guidance on how to supply these parameters correctly.

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 tool's purpose: 'Show compact recent repo-memory events, artifacts, and memories.' It uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies a distinct resource type, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'store_memory' or 'list_memories' which have different purposes.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use near task end to decide whether any durable proposed memories are worth creating.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other use cases.

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