Get Recent Notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the default sort order and the inclusive 'modified at or after' filter semantics. It says nothing about what a returned note contains or how limit interacts with result ordering, leaving gaps the annotations don't fill.

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, front-loaded with the single most important fact (recency ordering) and then the filter syntax, then use cases. The final clause ('pick targets for review') is slightly filler but does reinforce intent.

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 exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return shape, and it never says whether notes come back as titles, paths, or full content — a real gap for a listing tool. Filtering and ordering are adequately covered.

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 description largely restates the `since` documentation, including the same relative-span examples ('7d', '24h', '2w'). `limit` and `folder` are not mentioned at all, so the description adds essentially no parameter meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the ordering guarantee ("List notes ordered by most-recently-modified first"), which meaningfully separates it from the unordered list_notes / search_notes siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 three concrete usage contexts (surfacing recent work, a 'what changed this week' digest, picking review targets), which is stronger than implied usage. It offers no exclusions or 'use X instead when…' routing, so the choice against search_notes or list_notes remains unstated.

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