memory_recent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior: omitting project_id falls back to the current project. It says nothing about ordering, limit behavior, or how many results come back, but with annotations in place a 3 is fair.

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 sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than truly economical.

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 values need not be explained. However, for a listing tool with an undocumented limit parameter and no statement of ordering or default result count, the description leaves the agent guessing on operational details.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It partially does so for project_id by implying 'current project' as the default, but the limit parameter (default 10) is never mentioned or explained, leaving half the inputs undocumented anywhere.

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 (List) and resource (recent memories) with the scope qualifier 'current or given project'. That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from memory_search or memory_get conceptually, but it never names or contrasts those siblings 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 reach for this tool instead of memory_search, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The word 'recent' hints at a time-ordered browse, but the choice between this and search is left entirely to inference.

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