list_recent

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions returning items within a time offset, but does not state if it is read-only, whether there are limits, ordering, or pagination. The behavioral scope is minimal.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it could be more structured and informative. It is not front-loaded with the key action; the sentence structure is acceptable but not optimal. It wastes no words but lacks clarity.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but fails to clarify what 'items' refers to. Sibling tools indicate different item types, but without context, the agent may misuse the tool. More context (e.g., returns recent todos or projects) is needed.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description adds value by giving examples like '3d', '1w', '1y'. However, it does not specify the exact format or supported units, leaving some ambiguity. It partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Items created within an offset' which implies listing items, but does not specify what type of items (tasks, projects, etc.). The sibling tools like list_inbox suggest different item types, but the description does not distinguish. It is clear but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_inbox. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not the context.

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