list_recent_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses sorting behavior (by mtime or date field), scoping (folder/tags/where/match), and result type ('lightweight headers'). It does not mention destructive actions (unnecessary for read) but could clarify pagination details. Overall, it sufficiently describes behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: first states what, second details sorting/scoping, third gives use case. No redundancy or fluff.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality: ordering, scoping, and use case. 'Lightweight headers' hints at output format. It might need more on pagination or default behavior, but it's sufficient for a list tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the relationship between 'match' and 'tags' and that 'where' conditions all apply. However, it does not elaborate on 'limit', 'offset', or 'date_field', which are left to the schema. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 verb 'List', resource 'notes', ordering 'by recency', and result format 'lightweight headers'. It differentiates from siblings like 'list_notes' (no recency) and 'search_notes' (full text). The phrase 'find current material' further reinforces the purpose.

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 a clear use case: 'Use it to find current material.' It implies when to use (recent notes) by specifying recency sorting and optional cutoff. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, e.g., when to use 'list_notes' or 'search_notes' instead.

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