get_recent_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that messages are 'raw' and 'unprocessed' and limited to 'the last few days'. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or what form the data is returned in, nor does it specify behavior when no messages are found.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value: the first states the core purpose, the second specifies when to use, the third gives concrete use cases, and the fourth reinforces the unprocessed nature. No wasted words and front-loaded.

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 tool has low complexity with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, use cases, and contrasts with alternatives. It does not explain parameter behavior or return format, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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?

Context signals indicate schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not mention the two parameters ('max_days', 'force_refresh') at all, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Retrieve', the resource 'raw conversation messages', and the scope 'from the last few days'. It distinguishes itself from processed summaries, which aligns with sibling tools like 'recall_memory_abstract'.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('when you need to see actual conversation history rather than the processed summary') and provides clear use cases ('creating or updating memory abstracts', 'specific details from recent exchanges'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the contrast with processed summary is sufficient.

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