get_recent_pastes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that both 'created or modified' pastes are returned, which is useful context. However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether results are ordered, pagination behavior, or any rate limits. For a simple read tool, this is minimal but not deficient.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and avoids redundancy with the schema. Every phrase adds value, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 low-complexity list tool with optional filters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what to expect. It covers the main purpose and filter options. However, it omits details like ordering (e.g., newest first) or what 'recent' means (e.g., time window), which could be helpful but are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'optionally filtered by project or type' mirrors the schema's optional flags but adds no new semantic detail. The meaning of 'limit' is already well explained in the schema. No additional depth is provided.

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: 'Get recently created or modified pastes'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('pastes'), and the distinguishing scoping ('recently created or modified'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_pastes and get_paste, which serve different purposes.

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 indirectly implies usage when the user needs recent pastes, possibly filtered by project or type. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_pastes for arbitrary search criteria, get_paste for a single paste). The absence of exclusions or alternative references leaves usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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