recent

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Details that only live entries are returned, archived hidden; returns lean node data (id, label, excerpt); explains group_by_domain, memory_id, tags, limit, digest behaviors. Also includes meta-instructions about presentation, which add 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 lengthy (multiple paragraphs) and includes meta-instructions about not revealing the retrieval process, which may be extraneous. While front-loaded with purpose, it could be more concise.

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 7 parameters with complex interactions and no output schema, the description covers most aspects: return format (lean node data with id, label, excerpt), digest behavior, grouping, filtering, and tool alternatives. Lacks explicit field descriptions for the output, but 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining interactions (group_by_domain ignored with domain or memory_id), default limits, tags OR semantics, digest behavior, and memory_id depth-2 neighbourhood.

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?

First sentence clearly states 'List the most recently added or updated memories, optionally filtered by domain.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit (archived/stale) and recall (full content), and hints at session orientation.

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?

Explicitly says 'Good for session orientation.' Provides when-not-to-use guidance: 'If the user asks about something that seems missing, consider suggesting audit(mode=stale) ... or audit(mode=archived).' Also directs to recall(id) for full content.

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