kura_list_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists '20 most recent notes' and excludes 'full content,' which adds some context. However, it doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and usage. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and its basic usage, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits like safety, performance, or return format. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's purpose: 'List the 20 most recent notes with their metadata (without full content).' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('notes'), scope ('20 most recent'), and output limitation ('without full content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kura_search or kura_get, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides implied usage guidance: 'Use this to get an overview of recent activity.' This suggests when to use the tool (for recent overviews) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like kura_search for different filtering needs. It offers basic context but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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