memory_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists recent memories without filters, but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only guarantee, authentication needs, pagination behavior (beyond `limit` parameter), or what 'recent' means (e.g., time-based sorting). The description provides minimal behavioral context.

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 concise with two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides usage guidance. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate usage and behavior).

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 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is adequate but has gaps: it lacks behavioral specifics (e.g., read-only nature) and parameter details for `limit`. The usage guidance is strong, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 description must add meaning. It mentions 'specified workspace' for the `workspace` parameter, but does not explain the `limit` parameter (e.g., maximum number of memories to return, default behavior). The description partially compensates but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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 it lists recent memories without keyword filtering, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool `memory_search` by indicating it's for unfiltered browsing. It specifies the resource (memories) and scope (workspace).

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 provides three specific use cases: when keywords are uncertain, when `memory_search` returns no direct hits, and when browsing inventory before reading source files. It helps the agent decide when to use this tool over alternatives.

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