top_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the ranking formula (access_count / time_decay), the default mode, and that it is a read operation via 'Return'. It does not address pagination or whether the ranking is computed live, but the algorithmic disclosure is above the norm.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and well-sectioned. The Args and Returns blocks largely restate the input and output schemas, which is mild redundancy, but the mode explanations earn their space.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema already covering the return format, the description supplies everything else needed: purpose, ranking semantics, mode selection, and use cases. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: it defines 'by' with both valid values and the default, defines 'limit' with its default, and adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the 'score' value actually represents (Ebbinghaus decay).

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Return your most important notes ranked by engagement.' The ranking dimension (engagement-based top-N) clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_notes, find_related_notes, and read_note, which retrieve rather than rank.

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?

Explains both ranking modes with explicit 'Best for' conditions (score for core knowledge nodes/most-researched stocks, recency for resuming recent work) plus three concrete use cases. The agent knows exactly which mode to pick and for what scenario.

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