history_get_recent_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the subagent exclusion default, which is useful, but doesn't mention read-only nature, pagination, or exact data scope beyond 'registered agents.' Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the action and result. Every word earns its place.

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?

Lacks detail on return shape, parameter semantics (limit, source, project), and how this relates to sibling tools. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is under-specified.

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?

What is the meaning of parameters with schema coverage only 20% and description lacking detail? The description adds context for include_subagents via the default note but ignores limit, source, and project entirely, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 retrieves a project overview plus recent primary conversation summaries across registered agents, and notes subagents are excluded by default. This distinguishes it from siblings like history_search and history_get_thread, though the term 'primary' is slightly ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives. The description implies use for getting recent context but doesn't clarify when to choose this over history_get_project_summary or history_get_thread.

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