list_notes

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, since no annotations are provided, it should also disclose other behaviors like pagination, ordering, or what happens if no notes exist. The description adds some transparency but is not comprehensive, earning a 3.

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: three sentences total. The first sentence states the core purpose and read-only nature. The next two sentences provide alternative guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text. It is well 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?

Given the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description should fully cover usage. It lacks explanation of the 'limit' parameter and does not describe the output format or any pagination behavior. The absence of these details means the tool is not fully documented for an agent to use correctly.

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 description does not mention the only parameter 'limit' at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the purpose and constraints of the parameter. The agent has no way to know that 'limit' controls the number of notes returned, making this a severe gap.

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 'List the authenticated user's own published Notes (short-form, Twitter-like).' It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('Notes'), and specifies the scope ('authenticated user's own published'). Additionally, it distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying to use list_comments for comment threads and to fetch via note id for replies, reducing ambiguity.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use alternatives (e.g., 'For a comment thread on a post use list_comments. For replies under one note, fetch via the note id.'). It implies authentication is needed by stating 'authenticated user', but does not explicitly list prerequisites or edge cases. A score of 4 reflects good guidance with minor omissions.

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