cairn_recent

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape ('gists', not full text) and a downstream tip about raising max_chars on the read tool. It says nothing about ordering, what 'recent' means (time window), how limit affects scope, or whether the operation is read-only — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences with the content scope front-loaded and the follow-up action second. The parenthetical about max_chars is slightly muddy since that knob belongs to cairn_read, but the text earns its space overall.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (gists) and how to get full text. It falls short on the one structured input (limit) and on the meaning of 'recent', leaving the agent to guess scope and pagination.

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 must explain the single parameter, and it never mentions 'limit' or its default of 12. Worse, the only parameter-adjacent advice concerns max_chars, which is not a parameter of this tool at all, which risks confusing the caller about what it can tune here.

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 concrete content set ('recent decisions, open items, and warnings across the vault') and frames it as 'what's live right now', which tells an agent precisely what this returns. It also distinguishes itself from cairn_read by noting it returns gists rather than full text. It lacks an explicit verb (list/retrieve), so it stops just short of a 5.

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 'what's live right now' and it does route the agent onward to cairn_read for full text, which is a genuine alternative named. But it gives no guidance on when to pick this over cairn_search, cairn_orient, or cairn_wander, and no exclusions are stated.

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