list_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the ordering behavior (newest publication date first), but it says nothing about limit semantics, pagination, response shape, or whether all dispositions are included. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 Japanese sentence with no filler, front-loading the core behavior. Every word earns its place and the structure is appropriately sized for such a simple list operation.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only documentation, and it is too sparse to fully support invocation. It leaves unanswered questions about the limit parameter, the nature of the returned dispositions, and how this tool relates to its siblings. It is minimally viable but clearly incomplete.

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 schema has one parameter, 'limit', with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions this parameter, so an agent must rely entirely on the parameter name to infer its meaning. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('返す' / returns) and resource ('処分' / dispositions) with an explicit ordering key (公表日, newest first). This is clear and not a tautology, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_cases.

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 description implies a usage context: retrieving dispositions ordered by newest publication date. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_cases, get_case, or stats, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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