list_unprocessed

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about detection using frontmatter rather than folder placement. It does not describe return format details beyond 'vault-relative path', which could be improved, but overall it is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and a practical pointer to a sibling tool. Every sentence adds value.

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 (one optional param, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what is listed, how detection works, when to use it, and how the output can be used.

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 the parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how limit affects results or the default value is already in schema.

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 uses a specific verb (list) and resource (unprocessed vault files) and clearly states the detection mechanism (raw_file frontmatter). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_proposals by explaining the output can be passed to propose_compile_from_raw.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use scenarios: when the user asks 'what haven't I filed yet?' or before a compile pass. Also mentions that results are directly consumable by propose_compile_from_raw, guiding the agent to the appropriate next step.

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