get_recent_memories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact, the limit cap of 50 (the schema defines no maximum), but says nothing about return format, pagination, or whether fewer results exist than requested.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the primary action and ordering are front-loaded and the cap constraint follows immediately.

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, one-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and the cap a caller needs to call correctly. Only the relationship to the search sibling is absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it discloses the cap of 50 but omits the default (10, only visible in the schema) and any lower bound or behavior when limit is exceeded. It partially compensates for the coverage gap, so a 3 is appropriate 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the most recent memories') plus ordering semantics ('newest first'), which distinguishes it from get_voice_memory (single retrieval) and save_voice_memory (write). However, it never names search_voice_memories, the closest sibling, so the agent must infer the browsing-vs-searching boundary on its own.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'most recent memories' suggests a browsing/recency use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no condition that routes to search_voice_memories, and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the alternative.

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