get_recent_queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses what is returned (up to 10 select/write queries in latest order) and what is deliberately not stored or returned (query results and connection info), providing useful expectations beyond the empty schema.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: core behavior, trigger condition, and limitation. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant phrasing.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema history-retrieval tool, the description covers the return cap, ordering, trigger context, and exclusions. An agent can confidently call it and interpret the outcome without additional metadata.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is required; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds return-semantics context rather than input details, which is appropriate here.

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 states a specific verb ('반환한다') and resource ('최근 실행한 쿼리(select/write)') with clear constraints: maximum 10, latest first. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like run_select_query, run_write_query, and list_connections.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: call when the user asks '방금/최근에 무슨 쿼리 실행했어?'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool.

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