get_recent_tool_calls

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a retrieval operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that history is kept in memory (last 1000 calls, lost on restart), excludes tracking of its own calls and meta/query tools, and mentions the tool can be referenced as 'DC: ...' in instructions. This goes beyond the basic safety profile indicated by annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, useful scenarios, behavioral notes, and usage reference. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently organized, making it easy to parse while remaining comprehensive.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, read-only operation with annotations), the description provides strong contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral constraints, and memory limitations. The main gap is the lack of parameter details, but overall, it gives the agent sufficient context to understand when and how to invoke the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters but provides no information about maxResults, toolName, or since. However, the description does imply filtering capabilities through phrases like 'recent tool call history' and 'chronological list', which loosely relate to the parameters. Since schema coverage is low, the description doesn't fully compensate, resulting in a baseline score.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent tool call history with their arguments and outputs'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which focus on files, processes, searches, or configurations rather than tool call history. It explicitly defines the scope as 'during this session' and 'chronological list', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios in the 'Useful for' section (onboarding, recovering context, debugging) and clear exclusions in the 'Note' (does not track its own calls or meta/query tools). It also mentions memory limitations (last 1000 calls, lost on restart), giving comprehensive guidance on when and how to use this tool effectively.

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