get_recent_tool_calls

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses substantial behavioral detail: it does not track its own calls or track_ui_event (self-exclusion), persists to tool-history.jsonl, keeps up to 1000 calls in memory while trimming older on-disk history, and replaces outputs over 4 KiB with an omission marker. This gives an agent accurate expectations about data availability and truncation.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, scannable bullet points for use cases, and a compact 'Note:' block for behavioral caveats. The final line about 'DC: ...' referencing adds minor value for intent recognition. Slightly long, but every sentence carries distinct 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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers return shape (chronological list), persistence location, retention limits, output truncation, and self-exclusion. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented filtering semantics of the since and toolName parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It partially does: the 'last 1000 calls' limit maps to maxResults' maximum, and 'recent'/'chronological' hints at ordering relevant to the since filter. However, it never explicitly explains that since filters by timestamp or that toolName filters by tool, leaving two of three parameters under-documented.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get recent local tool call history with arguments and outputs.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from all siblings — no other tool in the list claims tool call history as its subject, and the second sentence clarifies the chronological return shape.

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:' section lists three concrete scenarios: onboarding, recovering context after chat history loss, and debugging tool call sequences. This is clear context for when to invoke it. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't name explicit alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, though no obvious sibling competes for this use case.

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