typora_recent_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from history.data and includes 'disk verification' (implying existence checks), but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, what happens if history.data is missing, or how missing files are represented. It adds some context beyond the schema but leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes relevant details. It is concise with no filler or repetition, earning a high score for efficiency.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return structure. It mentions returned fields (timestamp, relative time, disk verification) but does not specify the data structure (e.g., array of objects) or error behavior. For a low-complexity tool with all-optional parameters, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'disk verification' which loosely ties to the verify_exists parameter but adds no new meaning to limit or query beyond their schema descriptions. It does not clarify formats, defaults, or edge cases, so it adds minimal value over the schema.

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 a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (recently opened Markdown documents from Typora's history store), and differentiates from siblings like typora_recent_folders (folders) and typora_list_drafts (drafts). It also adds detail on what is included (timestamp, relative time, disk verification), making the tool's 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of cases where typora_list_drafts or typora_recent_folders would be preferred, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. An agent must infer usage purely from the name and description.

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