memory_recent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the cross-agent scope ('from any agent'), the brief return shape, and the OR-style matching semantics ('any word may match'). It omits ordering guarantee beyond 'newest' and pagination 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then filtering semantics, then the escalation path. The return-fields list is slightly enumerative but each item carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be spelled out, yet the description still gives a useful preview and routes to brain_node for full records. The only real gap is `limit` semantics, which is minor for a read-only list tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `query` well (word-based, any-word matching) but says nothing about `limit`, leaving one of two parameters undocumented. Partial compensation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Newest shared records from any agent, in brief form') and distinguishes itself from the full-record path by naming brain_node for the detail view. It does not explicitly separate itself from close siblings like memory_record or brain_search, so it stops short of a 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?

Implied use case is clear (list the newest brief records, optionally filtered), and it points to brain_node('memory:<id>') as the alternative when a full record is needed. No explicit when-not guidance or comparison against brain_search/memory_record.

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