notes_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('List all notes with optional filtering') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, what 'optional filtering' entails, or the format of returned data. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about the tool's purpose.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how filtering works, or any behavioral aspects. For a list operation with multiple filtering options and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand proper usage.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters (limit, after, properties, associations, archived) are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'optional filtering' which hints at some parameters but doesn't specify which ones or their purposes. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters semantically undefined.

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') and capability ('optional filtering'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like notes_search or notes_get, which also retrieve notes data, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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. With sibling tools like notes_search, notes_get, and notes_list in the same server, there's no indication of when this list operation is preferred over search or get operations, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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