pathgrove_find_recent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that – results are sorted newest-first – but says nothing about truncation by max_results, recursion into subdirectories, or what happens when the period yields nothing.

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 short sentences plus a one-line ordering note; the core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence and nothing is padded. The trailing newline fragment is slightly awkward but harmless.

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-value explanation is not required, and the annotations cover safety. Still missing for a discovery tool: whether the search is recursive, how max_results truncation is signalled, and how it relates to the six sibling search tools – an agent choosing among them gets no routing help here.

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?

The reported coverage of 0% applies to the wrapped top-level 'params' object, but the nested schema does document path, query, period, extensions, and max_results in detail, and the description correctly frames the tool around the period concept. The description does not itself restate period formats or extension syntax, which is acceptable given the nested schema carries that load, though it could have warned that path defaults to empty (likely current directory).

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 and resource ('Find files modified within a recent time period') plus the result ordering ('Sorted newest-first'), so an agent knows exactly what kind of result set to expect. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like pathgrove_search or pathgrove_search_by_type, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

The 'Ideal for discovering what changed in a project, tracking recent downloads, finding today's log files' line gives concrete usage scenarios, which is real guidance. However, it offers no when-not conditions and never names an alternative sibling tool for time-agnostic searching, so the agent must infer the boundary with pathgrove_search itself.

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