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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Get recently updated notes' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify sorting order (e.g., most recent first), whether it includes deleted notes, pagination behavior, or performance characteristics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about return format, error handling, or how 'recently updated' is defined. For a read operation with good schema coverage, it's passable but leaves the agent to guess about behavioral details.

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 both parameters ('workspaceId' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying recency filtering, which isn't parameterized. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Get recently updated notes' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('notes'), with the qualifier 'recently updated' providing specific scope. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_notes' or 'search_notes', which likely have different filtering mechanisms. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_notes' and 'search_notes' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for chronological filtering, performance optimization, or other specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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