Retrieves random notes from your vault for active review, prompting you to link them elsewhere, sharpen claims, or archive what no longer holds.
Random notes pulled up for re-reading -- the anti-write-only-vault move.
Re-read them, then either link them somewhere new, sharpen the claim, or archive them if they no longer hold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| with_body | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the purpose and subsequent actions but does not explain important behaviors: how random selection works, whether it modifies any state (e.g., marks as reviewed), or if there are any side effects. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it fails to disclose potential state changes or selection logic.
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 concise and front-loads the core purpose. It is a single sentence for the purpose plus a brief directive on next steps. It is efficient, but the lack of parameter details and depth on usage makes it slightly under-informative for a 3-parameter tool.
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 complexity (3 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It misses parameter semantics, any behavioral details like selection randomness or side effects, and doesn't clarify how it differs from related tools like `stale_notes` or `recent_notes`. An agent would struggle to call it correctly.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description provides zero explanation of the parameters (count, folder, with_body). The agent has no information on what these control, their formats, or defaults beyond the bare schema. The description's mention of 'Random notes' and linking doesn't connect to the parameters, so the agent is left to guess.
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 action ('Random notes pulled up for re-reading') and indicates it is about resurfacing notes for review, distinct from tools like `list_notes` or `stale_notes`. The purpose—revisiting notes to link, sharpen, or archive—is clear, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the unique framing distinguishes it from siblings.
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 gives guidance on when to use it: when you want to revisit random notes and take actions (link, sharpen, archive). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like `related_notes` or `distill_queue`, so usage context is implied rather than explicit. It could be clearer about when not to use it, e.g., for targeted searches or when you need specific notes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.