memory_latest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it filters out reference records and orders by recorded event time. This goes beyond annotations, though it does not explain the meaning of 'non-reference' or any implicit limits. The output schema exists, so return format expectations are covered elsewhere.

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 sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Return'. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core purpose.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It does not clarify what 'non-reference records' means, how 'recorded event time' is defined, or whether the output is a list. Given the existence of sibling tools with more complex behavior, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 input schema has one parameter (top_k, integer, default 5) with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what top_k controls or how it affects the result. The parameter name is suggestive but not explicitly clarified. The description should compensate for the lack of schema descriptions but fails to do so.

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 latest non-reference records ordered by recorded event time. It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('non-reference records'), with ordering detail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search_candidates (search) and memory_fetch_evidence (fetch specific evidence).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, or reference sibling tools like memory_search_candidates for filtering. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from context.

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