neuron_recipe_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a read ('Read') and that results are ordered by recency ('Returns the most recent entries'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, handling of empty history, or any failure conditions.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action ('Read a recipe's run history'), states the source, describes the return behavior, and gives usage context — all without wasted words.

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?

For a simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main points: what is read, where the data comes from, what is returned, and when to use it. The absence of return-value details is a minor gap, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The mention of 'most recent entries' loosely relates to the limit parameter, but the schema already explains that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a recipe's run history'), and clarifies the data source (neuron_recipe_log). It clearly states the tool returns the most recent entries. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool neuron_recipe_log, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clear usage context: 'Use during the evolve phase to analyze what's working and what's not.' This tells an agent when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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