list_notes

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

The description explains the behavior: returns a dictionary with notes list and metadata, with pagination via limit and offset. Since no annotations exist, it sufficiently conveys the read-only nature, though could explicitly state no side effects.

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 concise (around 80 words) and structured as a docstring with Args/Returns sections. Some rephrasing could improve clarity, but it is largely effective and front-loaded.

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 list tool with pagination and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: filtering, pagination, return structure. It is complete given the tool's complexity and sibling context.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: notebook_id filter, limit (1-100), and offset for pagination. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 'Get all notes with optional filtering', providing a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like get_note (single note) and search (full-text search across sources).

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 usage for listing notes with optional filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as search or get_note. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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