upnote_recent_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only states scope and recency. It does not say what fields are returned, whether full note content is included, how the limit applies, or the ordering direction beyond the phrase 'most recently updated'.

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 a single compact phrase with no filler, which is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It is concise but could be restructured as a sentence with a verb without losing brevity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the returned notes contain, but it gives no indication of output structure or whether it returns metadata versus content. It also does not explain the recency semantics or the relationship to get_note for fetching full content.

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 only parameter, limit, is documented in the input schema with its default, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning about limit behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (most recently updated notes) and the scope (whole library), which distinguishes it from search and list siblings. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource sentence, so agents must infer the action of listing or retrieving.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over upnote_list_notes or upnote_search_notes, and it names no alternatives. The 'whole library' scope is a contextual hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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