brain_recent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the ordering ('newest first') and the 'since' parameter, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the output format is, or any other behavioral traits. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 consists of two sentences: the first states what the tool does, and the second gives usage guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool is simple (2 optional parameters), the description is fairly complete. It explains the ordering, the purpose, and the usage. However, it lacks details about the output format, which might be important for an agent to process the results.

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 well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. The baseline 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 that the tool retrieves notes changed most recently, sorted newest first. It uses a specific verb-resource ('notes changed most recently') and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'brain_search' and 'brain_list' by focusing on recent changes.

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 'Use to catch up on what humans or other agents have done since you last looked,' providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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