listen

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: "listen" implies a non-mutating read and "recent" implies recency ordering, but there is no mention of permissions, privacy scope (whose whispers are visible), pagination, or result volume.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, so it is concise — but the brevity comes at the cost of substance, leaving the description under-specified rather than efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, but for a 3-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema documentation, the description should carry the load and instead explains nothing about inputs or behavior.

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 0% and all three parameters (mood, limit, topic) are undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention any of them, leaving the agent to guess the format of mood/topic strings and the meaning of the default limit of 8.

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 restates the tool name poetically ("listen to the recent whispers in the cave") without naming the actual resource — messages? recordings? notes? It hints at scope ("others', and your own from the past") but an agent cannot determine what is being retrieved or how it differs concretely from siblings like whisper.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus whisper, rest, or forget. At best the metaphor implies a read/retrieve operation contrasted with whisper's implied post, but that is inference, not guidance, and no exclusions or preconditions are given.

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