Recent activity

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

readOnlyHint already declares this is a safe read, and the description usefully adds the sort order ('newest first'), which annotations do not cover. It says nothing about truncation behavior at the limit cap, what a 'modified' timestamp means, or what the results contain, so behavioral disclosure is only partial.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scope and ordering front-loaded and no padding. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is close to sufficient. The remaining gaps are the undocumented 'limit' semantics and the absence of any statement about what each returned item includes, which matters more here because there is no output schema.

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 only 50%: 'days' is documented with a default in the schema, but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The phrase 'last N days' merely restates the 'days' parameter without adding format, default, or edge-case meaning, and the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented 'limit'.

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 a scope (notes modified in the last N days) and an ordering (newest first). An agent can tell this apart from list_notes or search_notes on scope grounds, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 recency framing implies when this tool is appropriate (recent-changes style queries) versus a full listing or a search. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison to search_notes, list_notes, or read_note is given, leaving routing to inference.

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