memex_recent

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: no search query is needed, `since` is a lower bound, and `kind=corrections` includes the IDs of replaced memories. It does not describe return shape or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is a minor gap.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It contains no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters, a complete input schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, this description is sufficient. It tells the agent when to use it, how the parameters behave, and which sibling to prefer for topic-based lookup.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: it explains `since` as an ISO-8601 lower bound and clarifies that `kind=corrections` returns corrected memories with the IDs they replaced. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 lists memories by recency, names concrete use cases, and explicitly distinguishes it from memex_recall for topic search. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

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?

It provides positive guidance ('good for what changed recently or catching up after time away') and an explicit exclusion with an alternative: 'Do not use this to find a memory about a topic -- use memex_recall instead.' This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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