query_recent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well on defaults and filter semantics (active excludes archived, None shows all) and implies a read-only operation via 'Return', but says nothing about ordering guarantees, truncation behavior when limit is hit, or what happens with very large day windows.

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 action, then a use case, then a compact Args block. Minor waste in restating default values that already exist in the schema, but the structure is easy to scan and contains no filler.

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 three-parameter read query this is nearly sufficient: purpose, defaults, and filter semantics are all covered, and the existence of an output schema means the inline entry shape is a bonus rather than a necessity. The remaining gap is ordering and result-cap behavior when limit is reached.

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 it largely does: it defines days as a look-back window, limit as a result cap, and most importantly explains the tri-state semantics of state (active/archived/None) that the schema's bare string type leaves completely undefined. It loses a point only for not clarifying edge cases like negative or zero values.

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: 'Return the most recently updated vault nodes,' which immediately distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like read_vault or list_vault. The recency framing plus one concrete use case makes the purpose clear, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with find_nodes or search_vault.

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?

Offers one concrete triggering question ('what have I been thinking about lately?'), which gives implied usage context. It does not state when to prefer a sibling such as search_vault, find_nodes, or query_insights instead, nor any prerequisites, leaving selection to inference.

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