recall_recent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns data newest-first but does not mention scoping (e.g., agent-specific), response format, or any potential side effects. For a read-only tool, the description is adequate but minimal.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with a usage example. Every part is purposeful, no redundancy, and the key action is upfront.

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's simplicity (3 optional params, no required ones, output schema present), the description covers its core functionality and use case. It could mention ordering details or the limit default, but those are in the schema. Slightly above adequate.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (type, limit, agent_id). The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool returns recently stored memories in reverse chronological order, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('memories'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'recall' (likely search-based) and 'recall_as_of' by focusing on recency without a specific query.

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?

The description explicitly advises using this tool to surface fresh context when lacking a specific query, e.g., 'what did we just decide?'. While it implies alternatives for specific recalls, it does not name them explicitly. The sibling list provides additional context.

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