notes_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like pagination (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'archived' filtering entails. The description is too vague to guide an agent on behavioral traits beyond basic purpose.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a key feature ('optional filtering'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, return values, or behavioral constraints. For a list tool with filtering options, more context is needed to use it effectively, such as what 'notes' are or how filtering works.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't explain what parameters are available or their semantics (e.g., 'limit', 'after', 'properties', 'associations', 'archived'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter purposes or usage.

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 'List all notes with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('notes'), and specifies scope ('all notes') with a feature ('optional filtering'). It distinguishes from siblings like notes_get (single note) and notes_search (search with criteria), though not explicitly named. However, it could be more specific about what 'notes' are in this context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't specify when to use notes_list versus notes_search (which appears in siblings) or how filtering differs. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools are provided.

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