Recent Notes

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior: mtime vs frontmatter timestamp semantics, that unparseable 'created' notes sort last and can be dropped by a small limit, that sync touches make notes look recent, and that an empty vault returns [] rather than an error. That is substantive context beyond the structured fields.

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 well-sectioned (scope, Examples, When to use, Parameters, Errors, Returns) with the differentiating scope claim front-loaded. The two near-identical example calls are mildly redundant, costing a little length without adding much.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and clarifying null/missing semantics for 'created' and 'bytes'. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so names, defaults, and enum values are already documented. The description nonetheless adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining the sort_by + limit interaction and the practical consequence of 'created' ordering (undated notes fall to the end and may be excluded). This is above the baseline but somewhat edge-case focused.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List recently modified or created notes, sorted by timestamp') and immediately differentiates scope ('a time-ordered window into the vault, not a date-range filter'). An agent can distinguish it from vault_search, vault_list_notes, and vault_list_files without inspecting schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit 'When to use' line plus named alternatives with selecting conditions: 'Prefer vault_search for content-based discovery. Prefer vault_search_by_folder for browsing a specific folder.' Nothing is left to inference.

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