List recent materialized lessons, newest first, showing age, slug, source, and a body snippet to review what has been learned across sessions.
Compact listing of materialized lessons, newest first.
Format per line: <age> <slug> source=<src> <first 60 chars of body>
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond listing. Annotations are non-informative (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), and the description does not mention whether the operation is safe, has side effects, or pagination/limiting (k parameter not explained). The format hint is helpful but insufficient for transparency.
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: one for purpose/ordering, one for output format. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary verbiage.
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, the description is mostly adequate but lacks explanation of the 'k' parameter. Output schema exists, so return format is covered; however, the description could mention limiting behavior or edge cases (e.g., empty list).
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 description provides no information about the only parameter 'k'. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no semantic value to the parameter beyond what is in the plain schema.
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 provides a compact listing of materialized lessons, ordered newest first. It uses specific verb and resource ('listing of materialized lessons') and distinguishes from sibling tools like lesson_get, lesson_append, lesson_remove.
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 via the purpose and output format, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search, list_concepts). No when-not or exclusion guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.