memory_latest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'non-reference records' means, what the output looks like beyond an implied ordering, whether there are pagination limits, or what distinguishes this from research_latest. The output schema exists but the tool's behavior beyond ordering is opaque.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the ordering detail efficiently. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than well-structured, so conciseness here trades off completeness.

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 single-parameter, single-purpose tool, the description covers the basic action and ordering. However, the key ambiguity—what distinguishes 'non-reference' memory records from research records, and why use memory_latest over research_latest—remains unresolved. The output schema provides some return format info, slightly mitigating the transparency gap.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and one parameter (top_k). The description doesn't explicitly explain top_k, though its meaning is fairly self-evident from the name and default value of 5. The description implies an ordered list (so top_k means how many to return) but doesn't confirm this connection.

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 it returns 'latest non-reference records' ordered by recorded event time, which is reasonably specific about verb+resource+ordering. However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling research_latest tool, making it unclear to an agent why it would choose this over that sibling with a similar name and purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The siblings include research_latest, which sounds functionally similar, yet the description provides no differentiator, context, or exclusions to help the agent decide between them.

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