list_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose what is returned (two record types) and the empty-end semantics. It omits ordering, result-size limits, pagination, and whether results span all projects — meaningful gaps for an unannotated listing 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?

Front-loaded: the what-it-lists sentence comes first, then terse per-parameter notes with no filler. The telegraphic 'start/end：… kind：…' style is efficient, though slightly dense for readers unfamiliar with the domain vocabulary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape is covered, and all four parameters are explained. What remains missing for an unannotated, four-parameter listing tool is behavioral context: ordering, pagination or caps, and confirmation that it is a pure read.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description has to compensate and largely does: it gives accepted date/time formats ('2026-10-25', '2026-10-25 14:00', 'today', 'yesterday'), the meaning of an empty end, the kind enum (all/events/notes), and a graded scale for min_importance. The only miss is the start='today' default behavior and any timezone caveat.

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 names a specific verb and two concrete resources ('全时记' auto-segmented events and '随口记' quick notes/ideas/questions/todos), scoped to a time range. An agent can tell what comes back. It stops short of naming a sibling it is *not* (search, day_summary, get_record), so the differentiation is incomplete.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter semantics: narrowing by kind and raising min_importance to drop trivia suggests this is the browse/scan-the-timeline tool. But the description never says when to prefer it over search, day_summary, or get_record, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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