get_recent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'recently accessed entities' but doesn't specify what 'recent' means (e.g., time window, access count), whether results are sorted, or if there are rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a knowledge graph.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like recency definition, sorting, or error handling, which are important for a knowledge graph query tool. The absence of an output schema increases the need for more context, but the description doesn't compensate adequately.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (includeObservations, limit, memory_zone) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'recently accessed entities from knowledge graph (memory) and their relations', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_nodes' or 'inspect_knowledge_graph', which might also retrieve graph data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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. For example, it doesn't explain how 'get_recent' differs from 'search_nodes' or 'inspect_knowledge_graph' in terms of recency filtering or scope, leaving the agent to 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.