history_get_recent_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add some behavioral context: 'Subagents are excluded by default' and 'primary conversation summaries.' However, it omits return format, recency definition, required context, and potential side effects, so transparency is only partial.

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 description is short, front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every sentence adds value. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more organized given the absence of schema descriptions.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It covers the core purpose and one default, but leaves parameter behavior, return structure, and recency semantics unspecified.

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%, but the description only clarifies the include_subagents default (false) and hints at 'recent' limiting summaries. It does not explain limit, source, or project parameters, leaving most of the parameter semantics unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project overview plus recent primary conversation summaries'), which clearly states what the tool returns. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like history_get_project_summary by including recent conversation summaries and noting subagent exclusion.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as history_get_thread or history_get_project_summary. It provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative guidance, only a statement of what the tool does and a default behavior.

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