get_recent_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary action and parameters, without revealing whether the operation is read-only, any authorization requirements, result ordering specifics, or error behavior. This is minimal transparency for a retrieval tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose statement followed by a formatted Args list. It is front-loading the main functionality and avoids any fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and parameters, but given the absence of annotations, output schema, and usage guidance, it is not fully complete. It lacks details about return format, ordering, edge cases, or interactions with sibling tools, leaving some room for ambiguity in invocation.

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 provides no descriptions for parameters (coverage 0%), but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: limit with range and default, user_id as a restriction, and agent_id as a restriction. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type/default definitions, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return the most recently created memories.' This specifies the verb (return), resource (memories), and scope (most recently created), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_memories or recall that likely perform different operations.

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 usage for retrieving recent memories but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_memories or hybrid_search. There are no references to other tools or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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