list_planner_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that results are limited to the user's own notes, which is genuine scope context, but says nothing about ordering, volume, or pagination behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier arrives immediately. The parenthetical adds clarification rather than restating the name verbatim, though it is close to redundant with "personal."

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?

With no parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition supplies nearly everything needed to invoke it. The remaining gap is how this differs from planner_items, which matters given how many planner siblings exist.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 pairs the verb "List" with a specific resource, "the user's personal planner notes," and the parenthetical "(reminders they created)" narrows the scope. It does not name the closely related sibling planner_items, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told it.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "personal planner notes" suggests this returns user-authored notes rather than the full planner feed, but no explicit when-to-use condition or alternative (e.g. planner_items) is named. There are also no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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