recent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It accurately describes the time-window behavior and the hours parameter (default/max), but does not mention potential side effects, ordering, pagination, or whether deletions or other non-included changes are considered. The core behavior is transparent, but more detail could be added.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and the argument detail immediately after. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (one optional parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema available), the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It specifies the result type, the time window semantics, and the parameter's constraints, leaving no critical gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining 'hours' as a 'look-back window' and specifying a max of 720, which is not present in the input schema. This provides meaningful guidance for the single parameter.

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 entities, relations, and observations created or updated in the last N hours, using a specific verb ('Return') and explicit resource types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_nodes or read_graph, which focus on querying or reading the graph without a time-based recency filter.

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 implies usage for retrieving recent changes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., 'use search_nodes for fuzzy or cross-type searches'). The context is clear but not comparative, so guidance is only implied.

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