notes_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List all notes' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether archived notes are included by default (the 'archived' parameter suggests filtering but no context). The description lacks details on return format, error handling, or performance characteristics.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with 6 words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all notes') and adds a qualifier ('with optional filtering'). There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter semantics, or output structure. For a list operation with multiple filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use, such as how filtering works, what the response looks like, or limitations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't explain what parameters are available or their purposes. The 5 parameters (limit, after, properties, associations, archived) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter meanings or usage.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('notes'), and specifies 'all notes' with 'optional filtering'. It distinguishes from other notes tools like notes_get (single note) and notes_search (search with criteria). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from notes_batch_read (batch retrieval) or notes_list's exact scope compared to notes_search.

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 minimal guidance: 'List all notes with optional filtering' implies this is for retrieving multiple notes. However, it doesn't specify when to use this vs. notes_search (which likely has more advanced filtering) or notes_batch_read (batch operations). No explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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