recentOfficeDocs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval by the word 'Retrieves,' but it does not disclose ordering, recency window, pagination, or authentication requirements. This is adequate for a simple zero-parameter list tool but leaves room for more detail.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and resource clearly and efficiently.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema retrieval tool, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states the purpose and resource. However, it lacks usage guidance to differentiate from sibling list/search tools, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers 100% of them. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Retrieves' with clear resource 'recently used Office documents' and scope 'by the user.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like listOfficeDocs (general list) and searchOfficeDocs (search-based) by emphasizing the 'recently used' filter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listOfficeDocs or searchOfficeDocs. The description implies a use case (recent documents) but does not state when to choose it over siblings or mention any exclusions.

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