list_fading

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only, nothing is deleted,' which is a critical safety trait. It also discloses the deterministic nature and the scoring factors, giving insight into how the list is generated. It does not mention output format or performance, but given read-only hint, it covers the most important behavioral aspect.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('list the fading review queue'), then adds the scoring criteria, read-only safety, and a use case. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure flows logically from what to when.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value. It says it lists the queue and notes are scored, implying the output is a list of notes with scores, but it doesn't specify fields, ordering, or pagination. However, for a simple read-only list with two optional parameters, this is largely sufficient. The lack of explicit return structure is a minor gap, so a 4 is fitting.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage, describing tau_days as 'decay time constant in days (default 90)' and threshold as 'fading strength threshold (default 0.25)'. The description adds no additional parameter details; it doesn't even mention the parameters. Since the schema already fully documents them, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not enhance beyond the 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 clearly states the tool lists the 'fading' review queue, defines what fading means (notes going cold), and specifies the scoring criteria (decay + access + connectivity). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_duplicates and list_conflicts by focusing on coldness rather than duplicates or conflicts. Verb and resource are specific, and the purpose is immediately understandable.

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 explicitly says 'Use to suggest what the user might archive, refresh, or supersede,' providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or compare directly to any sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing. The context is clear but the guidance is not comprehensive.

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