list_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the sharing/permission model, newest-first ordering, the fact that the notes folder itself cannot be listed, and that it works when TrailMark is closed. It stops short of describing result limits or pagination, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and the returned fields, then the trigger, then the constraints. The parenthetical explaining the Notes window is slightly digressive but still carries real information about scope and privacy.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of return-value semantics and does so, naming the fields and ordering. It also covers the privacy boundary and offline behavior, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description's field notes (`note`, `title`, last-changed, size) describe the returned records rather than 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?

Uses a specific verb+resource (list the shared notes in TrailMark) and immediately differentiates from the sibling read_note by naming the `note` field read_note consumes. An agent can tell it apart from list_comments, list_tags, and list_unread without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger with representative user utterances ("my note about the deploy", "the prompt I wrote", "what I jotted down") and states the negative case: a note that is not shared is not listed and cannot be read, routing the agent to read_note only for shared notes.

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