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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output behavior (one line per page) and adds a meaningful operational trait: 'Does not count against the page budget,' which is beyond what the schema or title conveys. It could mention side-effect-free/read-only nature, but the context strongly implies a safe read.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core purpose, usage directive, and budget behavior in order of importance. No filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it returns, how to use it first, and why it is safe to invoke. There are no missing details that would prevent a correct call.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds useful meaning about the returned content, which is more than necessary for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('index.md'), and precisely defines the output as 'the catalog of every page in the vault (one line each).' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools like search_notes or read_note.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to 'ALWAYS call this first' and then 'read only the 1-2 pages that matter,' giving a clear workflow. It does not explicitly name search_notes or list_recent as alternatives, but the sequential guidance is strong enough to establish when this tool should be used.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavioral traits: a default look-back window, newest-first ordering, and that it does not consume page budget. It does not describe the returned page format or any limits beyond the schema, but for a simple read-only list tool this is solid transparency.

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?

Two short sentences carry the core behavior, the primary use case, and a key operational constraint with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with one fully documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: what is listed, the time window, ordering, and budget impact. It could be more complete by describing what fields/details appear in the returned page list, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the single 'days' parameter is already documented with type, range, and default. The description only repeats the default window, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('pages'), with a defined time window and sort order ('last N days (default 7), newest first'). It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_notes or get_index, but the 'recently modified' framing makes its distinct purpose reasonably clear.

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 clear usage context with 'Good for what changed lately' and adds a practical benefit ('Does not count against the page budget'). However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses a key non-obvious behavior: the hard page budget of 5 reads per session. It also clarifies that the tool returns full content. It could additionally mention error behavior for missing paths or confirm it is a pure read, but it is already meaningfully transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes the core function and path format; the second adds the budget constraint and recommended preceding workflow. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, how to address the resource, and a critical usage constraint. It also routes the agent to the right discovery tools before reading.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value with a concrete path example ('wiki/people/sam-okafor.md') and reinforces the vault-relative .md semantics, making the expected input format clearer to the agent.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns the full content') and a precise resource ('one markdown page by vault-relative path'). With the title 'Read one page' and sibling tools like search_notes and list_recent, it is immediately distinguishable as a targeted read operation.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to locate pages via get_index or search_notes first and to 'read only what matters', plus it warns about the hard 5-read budget. It does not explicitly mention list_recent or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching, global scope, snippet return format, and the useful operational fact that it does not count against the page budget. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but this is strongly implied by 'search'.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct value: the core behavior, the return format, and the usage trigger plus budget note. It is front-loaded and free of 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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, matching behavior, return shape, and when to use it. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds context about case-insensitivity and scope but does not materially extend what the schema provides for query and max_results.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('every markdown page'), with concrete details like case-insensitivity and line-numbered snippets. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_index, read_note, and list_recent.

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 to use it 'when the index does not answer where does this live', giving a clear trigger condition. It does not enumerate exclusions or compare against read_note/list_recent, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to route correctly.

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