List requests sent from the Kurlo app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds useful behavior: results are newest first, scoped to this machine, and include status, timing, and originating saved request. It does not explain pagination or return shape beyond that, but the schema covers the limit parameter.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose before adding the usage cue and follow-up tool. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 list tool with a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough context: recent local scope, ordering, returned fields, and follow-up behavior. The main remaining gap is an explicit differentiation from list_requests.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list recent requests sent from Kurlo on this machine, newest first. It clearly indicates the content includes status, timing, and source saved request. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_requests, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger: use when the user refers to something they just sent or saw in Kurlo. It also routes the agent to get_history_entry for reading one entry. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer list_requests instead, so a 4 is appropriate.

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