recent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only ('Read', 'archived') and adds useful context that it needs no browser, but it does not disclose auth/permission requirements or rate limits, and errors are unaddressed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then clean Args/Returns sections. Nearly every line earns its place, though the Returns block partially restates what the field names already imply.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description documents the returned dict shape and all four parameters well. For a simple read tool this is largely complete, missing only auth/error behavior and pagination nuance beyond limit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines channel as ID or full URL, explains 'since' semantics with a concrete example, states limit is a max, and explains include_embeds carries tweet payloads. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read the most recent archived messages of a channel'. The parenthetical '(no browser needed)' meaningfully scopes it against browser-dependent siblings like capture. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from (e.g. search), so it stops short of 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated. The 'since' arg notes it takes 'the watermark from status() before a capture, to see what's new', which hints at a workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-search-or-capture guidance or exclusion conditions.

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