Where things stand, and what has moved

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that lists/folders/tags return every call while tasks-touched and documents-written are incremental, and it explains the cursor round-trip. It stops short of stating payload size limits ('how much there is' is undefined), read-only guarantees, or rate limits, which leaves a small gap for a mutation-free but potentially large 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?

Front-loaded with 'One call to start on', which is the right lead. The second sentence is long and stacked with em-dashes, making it harder to scan than necessary, though every clause carries real information.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must describe the return contents — and it enumerates them concretely. It does not describe the shape or nesting of those results, but for a one-optional-parameter snapshot tool this is close to complete.

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% and the single parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the 'what moved since / where things stand comes either way' semantics. The description largely restates that, adding little beyond what structured data already provides — baseline 3.

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 exactly what the call yields (lists, folders, tags, counts, recent documents, cursor) and explicitly positions itself as a replacement for `lists`, `tags` and a blind `docs`. An agent can distinguish it from those siblings without opening any 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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'the first thing you ask' and 'the thing you ask again when you come back'. It also names the siblings it supersedes, which is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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