recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read, results are sorted newest-first, and an actor can filter, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose limit semantics, return format, or edge cases (e.g., empty state), so it's adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded with the action verb, each sentence adds distinct information: what the tool does and when to call it. No filler.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential context: session-start usage, ordering, and optional actor filter. Missing details about limit and exact return shape keep it from a 5, but it's complete enough for basic 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'actor' via 'optionally one actor' but says nothing about 'limit', whose default of 10 is documented only in the schema. The description adds some meaning but leaves one parameter uncontextualized.

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 the verb 'Read' with a clear resource, 'the latest records', gives ordering ('newest first'), and an optional actor filter. The purpose ('so you do not re-derive what you already know') clarifies intent, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remember' or 'verify'.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this at the start of a session.' This is clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use.

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