list_recent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the tool only covers markdown notes (important scope restriction) and sorts newest first. However, it doesn't disclose what data the output schema carries or any pagination/cutoff behavior given the ambiguous 'recently modified' window. With annotations covering safety, 3 is appropriate—adds scope and ordering but not richer behavior.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, zero wasted words. It conveys scope (markdown notes), ordering (newest first), and cardinality (n) compactly. This is near-ideal conciseness for a tool with this simplicity level.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with a single optional parameter, an output schema present, and simple semantics, the description adequately covers what's needed. The scope (markdown notes), ordering, and count are all stated. The only gap is not clarifying the ambiguous 'recently modified' window or return shape, but the output schema likely handles return format. Given low complexity and good annotations, this is complete enough.

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%, and there's exactly one parameter (n, default 10). The description says 'n most recently modified' which adds meaning to the parameter (it's the count limit), but with a default of 10 and a zero-required-parameter signature, the description's mention of 'n' does map to the schema parameter. The description adds limited semantics beyond the schema—it conveys the limit semantics but doesn't discuss valid ranges or edge cases (e.g., large n). Baseline 3 is appropriate for a low-sidebar effort on a single simple param.

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 uses a clear verb+object structure: 'list' the n recently modified markdown notes, with an explicit scope (markdown notes only) and ordering (newest first). It distinguishes from siblings reasonably well—read_note is singular, search_wiki is search, write_note is write, get_links gets links—though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative. Slightly penalized for not explicitly positioning against search_wiki, which is the closest alternative.

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 description implies the use case (list recent markdown notes) but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over search_wiki or other siblings, nor when not to use it. There's no exclusions or alternative differentiation. The ordering and scope are clear, giving minimal context, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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