Get the user's open (unchecked) checklist items across all unarchived notes, each with its note ID and title. Call this at the start of a session to pick up tasks the user left for you — items you can act on, act on; check them off with check_item when done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral details: only open/unchecked items are returned, only unarchived notes are included, and each result carries note ID and title. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or if there are side effects, but the verb 'Get' and the suggestion to check off items afterwards imply a safe read. This is more transparent than many tool descriptions.
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 two sentences. The first sentence states exactly what the tool returns, and the second sentence provides actionable guidance. There is no wasted verbiage, and the information is front-loaded.
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?
The description is complete for a simple read-only tool. It covers the scope (open items, unarchived notes), the output (note ID and title), and usage context (start of session). Even without an output schema, the user understands what to expect. It also provides a helpful cross-reference to check_item, making it self-contained.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this 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 the tool's function: retrieving the user's open (unchecked) checklist items across all unarchived notes. It specifies the output includes note ID and title, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_notes or check_item. The verb 'Get' is specific and matches the tool name.
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 instructs when to use the tool: 'Call this at the start of a session to pick up tasks the user left for you.' It also provides follow-up guidance on how to act on results, including using check_item to complete tasks. This is clear, actionable usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: note CRUD, checklist operations, label management, changelog entries, settings, and task queries. Descriptions explicitly differentiate between append vs. update, list vs. get, check vs. uncheck, and add vs. remove, so there is no ambiguity.
All tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_label, get_note, check_item, update_note), with consistent verb choices. Even 'get_my_tasks' and 'uncheck_item' fit the pattern, so the naming is predictable and uniform.
14 tools is well-scoped for a notes application with checklist, label, and changelog features. Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundancy or bloat, and the count sits comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool set covers full CRUD for notes, plus checklist management (add, check, uncheck), label management (add/remove), changelog entries, settings retrieval, and task aggregation. Minor gaps like archive/unarchive and a dedicated label list are workable, so the surface is near-complete for the domain.