یادداشت‌های من

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations - the privacy guarantee that 'Nobody else sees them' - and enumerates returned fields. It stops short of disclosing ordering, pagination, or what an empty note set looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the privacy scope; nothing is padded. The parenthetical Persian name duplicates the title field slightly, which is the only minor redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with one well-documented optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what it lists, what each item contains, and who can see it. Missing pagination/sort behavior is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (archived) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains its meaning. The description adds no filtering or default information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource - the caller's personal notes - and enumerates the fields each note carries (title, text, color, checklist, labels, pin state), which clearly separates it from siblings like mizito_list_labels or mizito_list_letters. It is clear about what is returned but never explicitly contrasts itself with an alternative note-listing tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of the archived/active distinction as a usage decision, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the word 'personal'.

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