get_recent_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of recent history sessions, which is basic output information, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly more integrated (e.g., merging the first sentence with the Args section) for optimal flow.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral details, it doesn't fully prepare an agent for safe and effective use, especially compared to siblings with similar functions.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'days': it explains it as 'Number of days to look back' with a default of 30. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides type and title), the description compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose and default value, though it could add more on constraints or examples.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get recent DJ history sessions within the specified number of days.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('DJ history sessions'), and scope ('recent... within specified number of days'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_history_sessions' or 'search_history_sessions', which prevents a score of 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_history_sessions' or 'search_history_sessions' for comparison, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is for retrieving recent sessions, but this is too vague for effective tool selection.

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