get_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves items but doesn't specify what 'items' refers to (e.g., projects, todos, areas), whether it requires authentication, what the output format is, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter details. Both sentences earn their place by stating what the tool does and explaining the parameter. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and args more clearly).

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?

Given the tool has one parameter with no schema descriptions but an output schema exists, the description provides adequate basics but lacks context. It explains the parameter well but doesn't clarify what 'items' are or how 'recently created' is defined (e.g., relative to now?). The output schema will handle return values, but the description could better integrate with sibling tools and item types.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'period' is a 'Time period' and provides examples of valid values ('3d', '1w', '2m', '1y'), clarifying the parameter's purpose and format. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Get recently created items', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_today', 'get_upcoming', or 'get_anytime' that also retrieve items with different temporal filters. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve items (e.g., 'get_today', 'get_upcoming', 'get_anytime', 'get_tagged_items'), there's no indication of when 'recently created' is appropriate versus other temporal or categorical filters. The user must infer usage from the name alone.

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