notes_overviewShows where Samsung Notes are read from, lists every folder with note counts and totals, and flags locked or unreadable notes so you can verify accessible data.
Start here. Shows where notes are read from, every folder with its note count, totals, and any problems such as locked or unreadable notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it reports folder locations, note counts, totals, and problem conditions such as locked or unreadable notes.
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 two short sentences and front-loads the most important instruction, "Start here." Every sentence adds value with no repetition or filler.
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 zero-parameter read-only overview with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the starting-point role, the returned scope, and the diagnostics it surfaces. A little more detail about the exact response structure could help, but it is not strictly necessary.
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?
The tool has no input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The schema is empty and fully described, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than invocation arguments.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: it shows note sources, folder note counts, totals, and problems such as locked or unreadable notes. It clearly distinguishes this overview tool from sibling tools like list_notes and read_note by focusing on aggregate structure and diagnostics rather than listing or reading individual notes.
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?
"Start here" gives clear guidance that this is the entry point before using note-specific tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.