recent_notes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It does: SQL-backed rather than vector retrieval, ordered by mtime, and the full deprecation lifecycle (callable through v2.x, removal in v3.0.0). It does not mention result limit behavior or return shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and routing/deprecation guidance, with the deprecation note placed before the removal schedule. Minimal waste, though 'No vector search, just SQL' is slightly peripheral.

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?

Deprecation and migration path are thoroughly covered, which is the most important context here. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the ambiguity around 'since' and 'vault' semantics leaves an agent unable to call the tool precisely without experimentation.

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 0% for all 3 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and it does not compensate. 'since' is undocumented (timestamp? seconds vs milliseconds? inclusive?) and 'vault' scope is never explained; only the mtime DESC hint loosely gestures at the ordering. Most of the parameter meaning is left to guesswork.

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 ('List recently modified notes') plus the ordering (mtime DESC), and explicitly disclaims a sibling capability ('No vector search, just SQL'), which separates it from search_semantic/search_hybrid. An agent can identify what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the exact motivating question ('what has the user been working on lately?') and names the preferred alternative (the vault-memory://recent/{vault} resource) along with the deprecation timeline. When-to-use and when-to-prefer-something-else are both explicit.

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