athena_gap_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool covers 'persisted' receipts and avoids expanding graph snapshots, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it define what 'recent' means in terms of time window or ordering.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the verb and object, with no wasted words. Every element—'recent,' 'persisted,' 'without expanding full graph snapshots'—contributes meaning, achieving high conciseness and effective structure.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but lacks important contextual details such as the definition of 'recent' (time window or entry count), what a GAPRUN receipt looks like (fields or format), and any pagination behavior. It is adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps that could affect correct invocation.

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 0% because the description never mentions the optional 'limit' parameter. The schema provides type and range (1–500), but the description adds no meaning about how 'limit' affects results, such as the default number of receipts returned or whether it is a maximum count. The agent must guess the parameter's role solely from its name.

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 ('List') and a clear object ('recent persisted GAPRUN receipts'), distinguishing it from heavier gap tools by adding 'without expanding full graph snapshots.' This directly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like athena_gap_get or athena_gap_replay.

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 phrase 'without expanding full graph snapshots' implies this is a lightweight alternative to tools that perform heavier expansion, giving the agent clear context for when to choose it. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide 'when not to use' rules, but the contrast is clear enough to guide selection without confusion.

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