get_recent_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states ordering behavior ('ordered by modification time') but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only, requires permissions, includes pagination, returns metadata, or handles errors. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with core functionality ('Get recently modified notes'), followed by ordering detail. Zero wasted words, efficiently conveying the essential action and key behavioral trait.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return format (e.g., note content vs. metadata), error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. Given the server context with multiple note-related tools, more guidance is needed to distinguish usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'limit' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'recently modified' scope, which doesn't clarify syntax or format. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('recently modified notes'), specifying ordering by modification time. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_note' (single note) and 'list_notes' (unfiltered list), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'find_related_notes' or 'search_vault' which might also return notes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_notes', 'search_vault', or 'find_related_notes'. The description implies recency-based retrieval but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other listing/search tools.

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