memory_list_recent

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description reveals useful behaviors: ordering (newest first), the existence of an opaque cursor for paging, the completeness guarantee within one scope, and that room domains are separate stores not covered by an unscoped call. This adds significant context the annotations do not cover.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core purpose, then a useful contrast with semantic search, followed by concrete usage hints for since/cursor, completeness, and domain requirements. It is compact (roughly 70 words) and front-loaded with the most important info.

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?

Given the tool complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers the key usage patterns: resuming work, catching up on rooms, using since/cursor, and domain scoping. It does not describe the return shape or fields, which would have been helpful since no output schema exists, but the context provided is largely sufficient for invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for `since` (last-seen time to get only new), `cursor` (page through older entries), and `domain` (required for shared rooms), elevating it above baseline. It does not comment on `limit`, `until`, or `exclude_author`, but those are already well-described in the schema.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'List the NEWEST memories first'. It explicitly contrasts with semantic search ('this answers what happened lately') and clarifies no query is needed, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like memory_read and memory_list_rooms.

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 offers concrete use cases (resuming work, catching up on a shared room) and directly contrasts with semantic search. It also gives a hard rule: pass `domain` to cover rooms. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for exact lookup vs memory_read), so it falls just short of perfect.

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