Delimit Memory Recent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it mentions the Free tier, no license gate, and that it calls backends.memory_bridge.get_recent. These details help an agent reason about cost, access, and implementation-level behavior.

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 well-structured with clear labeled sections: core behavior, when to use, when not to use, sibling contrast, and side effects. It is compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence contributes either usage guidance or behavioral context. No filler.

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-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the use case, exclusions, sibling distinction, side effects, licensing, and implementation path. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 single limit parameter is already fully documented in the schema with type, default, and meaning. The description's mention of 'last N memory captures' reinforces the parameter but does not add substantial semantic value beyond the schema. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the most recent memory entries.' It also clearly differentiates itself from siblings by naming delimit_memory_search as Pro semantic search and positioning this tool as the 'free chronological tail.' An agent can distinguish it from related memory tools without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('at session start to recall what the previous session was working on, or to scan for the last N memory captures') and explicit when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives (delimit_memory_search for semantic/structured search, delimit_memory_store for writes). This is model routing behavior.

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