get_recent_context

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, closed-world operation, so the description carries a lighter burden. It does add two useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations: results are limited to 'durable' memories and to what 'this profile can read' (a permission scope). It says nothing about ordering guarantees, refresh cadence, or what happens when no recent memories exist.

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?

A single short fragment with no wasted words, and the ordering criterion is front-loaded. However, it is a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement, leaving the reader to supply the implicit verb and the limit behavior.

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-value explanation is not required, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is any mention of the limit parameter and the absence of guidance relative to the many sibling retrieval tools, which is a real gap for a one-parameter list tool.

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?

There is one parameter (limit, default 10) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, so nothing explains what the limit constrains or what happens past the cap. The description therefore fails to compensate for the schema gap on the only parameter that exists.

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 conveys the resource (recently updated durable memories) and a scope qualifier ('this profile can read'), but it is a noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from siblings such as get_context, search_memories, or list_spaces. An agent can infer it returns recent memories but not clearly why it exists alongside get_context.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to any alternative such as search_memories for filtered lookups or get_context for broader context assembly. The 'most recently updated' ordering is the only implicit hint about when this tool is appropriate.

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