list_recent_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two useful traits: trash exclusion and the default result count. It omits ordering behavior, pagination, and whether shared/drive files are covered, leaving meaningful gaps for a listing tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two terse sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient to the point of being slightly thin, which is a mild weakness rather than a style problem.

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 two-parameter, non-required, read-style list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It would benefit from noting ordering/pagination behavior and what result set is actually covered, but nothing essential blocks correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (orderBy, maxResults) are already documented in the schema; the description only restates the default of 10, adding no new semantics. This meets the baseline for schema-driven tools.

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?

States a specific resource (most recently modified files) with a clear scope qualifier (not in trash) and default size, so an agent can distinguish it from search_files or list_folder. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'recently modified, not trashed' framing implies the appropriate context (quick recency listing) but never says when to prefer this over search_files or list_folder, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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