List notes modified in the past N days with relative path, modification time, and first-line title, in reverse chronological order. Use it to answer questions like 'What did I write last week?'
列出最近 N 天内修改过的笔记（相对路径 + 修改时间 + 首行标题），按修改时间倒序。适合回答'上周我写了什么'这类问题。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return shape and ordering, which is genuinely useful. It does not say whether 'N 天' means calendar days or a rolling 24h window, whether there is an upper bound on N, how results are truncated, or timezone handling — all material for a recency filter.
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 sentences, zero waste: the first is the capability and output shape, the second is the routing cue. Nothing is repeated and the most actionable information leads.
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 one-parameter listing tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields and sort order covers the main gap an agent would have. Missing only the default value and any result-count/limit behavior, which are minor.
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 compensate: "最近 N 天内" does clarify that `days` is a lookback window in days. However it omits the default (7, visible only in the schema as a bare title/default) and any bounds or timezone semantics, leaving the one parameter only partially specified.
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?
States a specific verb (列出) and resource (最近 N 天内修改过的笔记), and even enumerates the returned fields (相对路径 + 修改时间 + 首行标题) plus sort order. It is clearly distinct from search_notes/read_note/notes_stats, though it never names a sibling to confirm the boundary.
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?
Gives an explicit use case: "适合回答'上周我写了什么'这类问题", which anchors it to recency-browsing rather than query-based lookup. It stops short of naming alternatives such as search_notes for when the user has a keyword instead of a time window.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.