wetrack_get_recent_projects

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') scoped to the authenticated user, but it does not define what 'recently accessed' means, how recency is determined, or whether any access-tracking side effects occur. Adequate for a simple getter, but not rich.

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 compact sentences with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a clear parameter block. No filler or redundant information.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the purpose and parameter behavior sufficiently. It is slightly thin on how 'recently accessed' is determined and how this differs from listing all projects, but an agent can still call it correctly.

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?

The input schema only provides the parameter name and default, while the description adds the meaning ('Max projects to return'), the valid range (1-10), and confirms the default (4). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('most recently accessed projects for the authenticated user'). The scope and recency qualifier clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like wetrack_list_projects or wetrack_get_project.

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 implies the use case: retrieving a user's recent projects. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over wetrack_list_projects or otherwise name alternatives, so the agent must infer the selection criteria from the resource wording alone.

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