Notes List Notes

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

The readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true annotations already declare the safety profile, so the description's burden is to add behavioral context beyond that. It adds nothing: no mention of pagination behavior, result ordering, failure modes, or that folder_id/account_name scope the result set. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no transparency value.

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 short, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. The single sentence does not earn its place because it merely restates the tool name; nothing is front-loaded because there is no actual content to front-load.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. Even though an output schema exists and read-only annotations are present, the core purpose, parameter semantics, and differentiation from overlapping siblings (notes_search_notes, notes_get_note) are entirely unaddressed, leaving an agent unable to invoke the tool correctly with confidence.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the four parameters (limit, offset, folder_id, account_name) — and it says nothing about any of them. The unusual anyOf integer|string typing for limit and offset is left completely unexplained, and even the scoping relationship between folder_id and account_name is unaddressed.

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, 'Delegated Apple domain tool notes_list_notes exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP,' is a pure tautology: it restates the tool name and describes platform plumbing ('delegated', 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP') without ever stating the verb and resource. An agent must infer the 'list notes' function entirely from the tool's name, which the description fails to confirm.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like notes_search_notes, notes_get_note, notes_list_folders, or notes_list_accounts. No context is given for filtering by folder_id or account_name, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The description provides zero decision support for tool selection.

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