recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the 'newest first' ordering and the audit-log behavior of the llm parameter, which is genuinely useful. However, it omits pagination behavior beyond limit, response composition, and whether this is a pure read operation. Decent but not rich for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single opening sentence, followed by a compact, tabular parameter list with zero filler. Every line earns its place. Slightly more could be said about ordering semantics, but the structure is appropriately 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and complexity is low (3 optional params). It covers purpose, sorting, filtering, and limits. Minor gaps like pagination beyond limit and tie-breaking on equal timestamps exist, but the tool is simple enough that the current description is largely sufficient.

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 description must compensate, and it does. Each parameter is explained: project (restrict to one; empty means all), limit (max results, default 10), and llm (name for audit log). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles and defaults, fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: 'Latest memories of any type, newest first.' This is clear about what it does and implies ordering. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives it differs from, but the read-oriented listing purpose is distinguishable from search_memory and read_memory by the word 'Latest'.

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 is implied: the tool lists recent memories, which an agent would infer for 'what happened recently' queries. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of search_memory or search_memory_semantic for finding specific items. Acceptable but relies on inference.

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