list_recent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are chronological and span all discussions, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination, limits, or how include_mine affects results beyond what the schema states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the scope (all discussions, chronological) before the use-case framing. Efficient, though the final 'quoi de neuf' flourish and the unquoted French quotation marks are slightly ornamental.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope and ordering. It is adequately complete for an agent to call it, with the only gap being explicit sibling differentiation.

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 80%, so the schema already documents limit, since, chat_kind and include_mine with units and defaults. The description only echoes the 'since' concept ('depuis un moment donné') and adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is correct.

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: everything that happened since a given moment, across all chats, in chronological order. The 'toutes discussions confondues' scope is a meaningful discriminator, but it never names the obvious sibling (list_messages) to make the boundary explicit.

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?

'le point de départ pour « quoi de neuf »' implies a broad 'what's new' recap use case, which is useful orientation. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs list_messages or search_messages, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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