extract_recent

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

Annotations are all false, so the description is the main source of behavioral insight. 'Enqueue heuristic candidates' usefully indicates a write/mutation to some candidate queue, which is more specific than the annotation flags. However, it does not disclose whether repeated runs create duplicates, what side effects the enqueue has, or whether it consumes or only inspects messages.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it is so brief that some needed context is absent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, no parameter explanations, and no usage context, the description is incomplete for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the candidate-selection semantics, parameter meanings, and side-effect profile are still under-specified.

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 the description does not explicitly explain window_min or max_messages. 'Recent' and 'messages' provide weak contextual hints tying the parameters to a time window and a message limit, but the agent must infer the exact semantics from the parameter names and defaults alone.

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 names a specific verb ('Scan'), a specific resource ('recent dialog_messages'), and a concrete outcome ('enqueue heuristic candidates'). This differentiates it from generic sibling tools like ingest or review_candidates, though 'heuristic candidates' remains somewhat vague about exactly what is selected.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related candidate-pipeline siblings such as pickup_candidates, review_candidates, or accept_candidate. The phrase 'recent' implies a timing use case, but the description does not state it explicitly.

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