List notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'calendar notes' and 'date range' context, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, default ordering) are disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently communicates the action and scope without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, strong annotations, and full parameter schema, the description is adequate. It doesn't specify the return type, but 'List' implies an array, and the lack of an output schema reduces the need for detailed return documentation. The optional athlete behavior is covered by the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (start_date, end_date, athlete) having its own description. The tool description adds little beyond restating the date-range scope, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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), resource (calendar notes), and scope (date range). It is distinct from sibling tools like tp_get_note, tp_create_note, and tp_get_workout_note by specifying 'calendar notes' and the date-range filtering.

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 within a specified date range, which is clear from context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like tp_get_note for single-note retrieval, nor does it mention the optional athlete param for coach accounts.

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