working_set

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 fails to state whether the operation is read-only, how results are formatted, whether the 'limit' parameter affects output, or any side effects. The description is too vague to inform an agent about behavior.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is not a complete sentence and omits essential details. While it wastes no words, it also provides no usable structure or front-loaded key information.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns, how to invoke it, and why to use it. The current text is a fragment that does not describe return values, input semantics, or integration with the broader memory system. It is wholly inadequate.

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 defines a 'limit' integer but provides no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but offers zero semantic information about this parameter.

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 is a noun phrase ('Recently used memories for prompt injection') with no explicit verb, so it's unclear whether the tool lists, retrieves, or formats these memories. It names a resource ('recently used memories') and a context ('prompt injection'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'recall' or 'search'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for prompt injection' hints at a use case, but it does not explain scenarios, prerequisites, or when other tools would be more appropriate. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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