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

There are no annotations indicating side effects or permissions, and the description does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe. Although listing is generally non-destructive, the absence of explicit transparency about behavior or potential limitations (e.g., pagination, defaults) leaves uncertainty.

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 is extremely concise and free of unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does in a single sentence, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

While the description states the purpose, it omits any details about the output structure, return format, or potential error conditions. Without a schema or additional context, an agent cannot fully anticipate the response or handle edge cases. This makes the description incomplete for operational use.

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 for parameters is 0% — no descriptions for 'limit' or 'include_archived' are provided. The parameter names hint at their purpose, but the description does not explain their effect on the result (e.g., what 'include_archived' does or how 'limit' is applied). This is a significant gap for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('active public categories') and the included data ('note counts'). It is distinct from sibling tools like search_notes or read_note, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical scenarios. While the simplicity of the operation may make it self-evident, the lack of any contextual guidance leaves the agent to infer usage.

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