Get recent tool calls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds one useful behavioral trait — that the data is 'in-memory' (ephemeral, non-persistent) — which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about filtering behavior 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that conveys purpose, scope and returned fields.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's list of returned fields helps, but with five undocumented optional filters and no mention of pagination or result limits (maxResults default 50), the description is not fully complete for a filtering 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and all five parameters (since, deviceId, toolName, deviceName, maxResults) are undocumented in the schema. The description only lists return fields and hints at recency via 'recent', leaving the filter semantics entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb 'Get recent' and a specific resource 'in-memory Raccoon tool calls', plus what is returned (args, results, status, duration). It is clearly distinguishable from process/search siblings, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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 use this versus alternatives such as get_usage_stats or process logs. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'recent tool calls'; no exclusions or conditions are given.

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