mcp_engram_recall_recent

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral traits: it returns a limited number of memories sorted by access time. This is sufficient for a read-only list retrieval tool. No side effects or contradictions are present.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core functionality and immediately follows with a practical usage scenario, achieving high efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, simple output, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use it, and when to use it, leaving no critical gaps.

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 100% for the single parameter 'n,' and the description merely reiterates 'N most recently accessed' without adding new semantic details beyond the schema's 'Number of recent memories to return.' Thus, no added value, baseline 3.

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 returns 'the N most recently accessed memories, sorted by access time,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying recency and sorting, and by mentioning session rehydration for when exact names are unknown.

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 explicitly states the tool is 'useful for session rehydration when you don't know exact concept names,' providing a clear use case. While it doesn't list alternatives or exclusions, the context signals show many sibling tools, and this guideline effectively implies when to choose this tool over others.

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