list_agent_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement ('Requires a content-access token') which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format, whether it returns metadata or content, pagination, or any other behavior beyond listing. It is not misleading, but adds limited context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and the token requirement is a concise addition. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and a critical prerequisite. However, it lacks parameter clarification and what the response looks like, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has one parameter (teamId) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention teamId at all, leaving its role ambiguous. It says 'in a space' but does not connect that to teamId, so the agent cannot infer how to specify the space from the description.

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 Drive /Agent notes in a space' with specific examples (agent.md, learnings/letters.md), giving a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_files and list_folder_children by focusing on Agent notes.

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 implies when to use this tool (for listing Agent notes specifically) and mentions a prerequisite: 'Requires a content-access token.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough to infer its unique purpose among siblings.

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