mind_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only the sort order. It says nothing about the scope of 'additions', the default cap (schema shows default 10 but that is not in the text), the return shape, or any pagination/permission 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?

At four words it is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient. There is no filler, yet the single sentence also carries no useful detail.

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 simple listing tool this is thin: with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what is listed, in what direction, and how many by default. None of that is present, leaving the agent unsure what 'additions' refers to.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, which has a default of 10 but no documentation anywhere. The description never mentions limiting or result counts, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 phrase 'Show recent additions chronologically' names a verb (show) and a resource (recent additions) with an ordering qualifier, so the basic action is inferable. However, 'additions' is undefined (additions to what collection?), and it does not distinguish itself from plausible siblings like mind_list, mind_browse, or mind_recall_all, which likely also enumerate stored items.

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 the many listing/recall siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer that 'recent additions' means a recent-items listing, which is only weakly implied.

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