get_recent_tool_calls

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: it excludes its own calls and track_ui_event, names the persistence file, states the 1000-call in-memory cap, notes disk trimming, and discloses the 4 KiB output omission marker. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core behavior, then structures the rest into a short bullet list and a compact behavior note. The trailing line about being referenced as 'DC: ...' is meta rather than functional for selection, but overall it is tight and every functional sentence earns its place.

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 history reader with no output schema and no siblings to distinguish, the description covers what it returns (chronological argument/output list), storage lifetime, size limits, and self-exclusion. The only real gap is parameter meaning, which is a separate dimension.

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 0% and none of the three parameters (since, toolName, maxResults) are mentioned in the description. The phrase 'recent' vaguely hints at date ordering, but there is no explanation of filtering by tool name, the date format, or the result cap, so the description does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get recent local tool call history with arguments and outputs') and clarifies returns a chronological list from a local history file. No sibling covers call history, so there is no overlap to disambiguate, but it also does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 'Useful for' bullets give concrete contexts (onboarding chats, recovering context after history loss, debugging tool call sequences), which is clear usage guidance. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool clause, so it stops short of a 5.

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