get_recent_work

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the result content and sort order, and hints that 'since' is an ISO date, but it does not explain that 'since' filters entries or describe the effect of omitting it. The read-only nature is implied by the verb 'get' but not made explicit.

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 definition is short and front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler. The 'since = ISO date' note is terse but acceptable, so it loses a point only for being cryptic rather than explanatory.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. However, the description fails to document the 'project' parameter and does not clarify what 'since' actually does. For a two-parameter read tool this is an incomplete guide.

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 compensate for both parameters. It only covers 'since' with a format hint (ISO date) but not its filtering semantics, and it omits the 'project' parameter entirely.

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 identifies the resource (worklog), the content ('what was done and why'), and the ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes itself as a worklog tool among memory/decision siblings, though it does not name a contrasting tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There are no alternatives named and no exclusions stated, so an agent must guess when a worklog lookup is appropriate.

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