Recent interactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: newest-first ordering, raw interaction scope, and the line format [id] ts [kind] content. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or pagination, but these are minor for a read-only list tool.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The action, output format, filtering option, and use case are each covered efficiently, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 lightweight read-only tool with optional params and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format, ordering, and purpose. The limit parameter is fully covered by the schema, leaving no critical gap, though the description could briefly note that results are capped.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including enums, defaults, and limits. The description adds only the notion of optional kind filtering, which is already present in the schema, so no significant extra meaning is provided.

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?

Description states the specific verb 'List', the resource 'recently captured raw interactions', ordering ('newest first'), and the exact output line format. This distinguishes it clearly from memory-management siblings like remember, recall, and consolidate.

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 phrase 'Use for auditing history or before distilling memory' gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternative tools or state explicit exclusions, so it falls 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.