List notes

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (no contradiction). It adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as default sort order (most-recently-updated first) and the fact that only plain notes are editable via this server, which informs the agent about tool capabilities.

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 with three sentences covering purpose, output details, and a limitation. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for included fields or filters) to improve readability, but it remains efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (summaries with specific fields). It covers filtering, default sorting, and the plain/rich note distinction. All 5 parameters are covered by schema descriptions. The description could mention pagination behavior (e.g., defaults) but is largely complete.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, e.g., stating that filtering is by folder or format, and default sort order is implied but already clear from schema defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (list notes), the resource (account's notes), and the output format (summaries with specific fields). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning that only plain notes can be created/edited through this server, implying that for rich notes other tools are needed.

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 filtering options (folder/format) and a notable limitation about plain vs. rich notes, which helps with tool selection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, e.g., for full note content (use read_note) or for creation/editing of rich notes.

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