nexus_list_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read-only operation through 'Lista' and adds useful behavioral detail: files are ordered by modification recency and restricted to the projects/ area. It does not mention auth/rate limits, but for a simple listing tool the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, sorting criterion, and scope, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no nested objects, the description covers the key invocation context: what is listed, how it is ordered, and where to look. The only minor gap is that, with no output schema, the expected return shape is not explicitly detailed, though 'arquivos' gives a reasonable conceptual expectation.

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%, and the only parameter, limit, is already fully documented with type, optionality, and default value. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Lista'), a concrete resource ('arquivos modificados mais recentemente'), and a bounded scope ('projects/ no Nexus'). This makes the purpose immediately clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like nexus_search, nexus_get_project, and nexus_create_draft, even without an explicit comparison.

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 implies a use case: retrieving recently modified files. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as nexus_search or nexus_get_project, nor does it mention when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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