recent

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the meaning of 'interrupted' (simulation in flight when server stopped), the recovery path (check_job), and explicitly states it does not start or cancel anything. This aligns perfectly with the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints.

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 somewhat repetitive (mentions 'jobs still running' and later explains 'interrupted'), but each section contributes necessary details about output structure and semantics. It is not overly verbose and remains focused.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects: what the tool returns (list with fields), the meaning of a key status, and explicit non-actions. Combined with the input schema and annotations, it is fully sufficient for the agent to understand and use the tool.

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 only parameter 'format' has a clear description explaining the difference between 'json' and 'text' outputs, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's enum. It also notes the default and optional nature.

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's purpose: to find circuits and jobs the user recently worked with, using the verb 'find' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on recent items and session-start context.

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 provides an explicit usage context ('Call on session start') and clarifies no inputs are required, though an optional format parameter exists. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for typical use.

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