continuation_list_for_project

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden. It does add the key behavioral insight that absence and staleness look identical, which is crucial context. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., list of note IDs, timestamps, or contents), error behavior on invalid project paths, or whether stale notes are included. It gives reasoning but not complete behavioral specification.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides the essential usage rationale. The warning is front-loaded after the action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 a simple listing tool with two params and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and the critical use case. It does not describe the return format or ordering, but these are likely inferable from the context (listing notes). The description is complete enough for an agent to select the tool correctly and understand the primary caveat.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies as the description does not detract or add.

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 states a specific action ('List'), a specific resource ('continuation notes'), and a scope ('for one project'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by focusing on listing existing notes, while siblings handle writing, cleanup, or staleness-based reads. The verb+resource+scope is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use it when you are not sure a note exists'. It also explains the critical distinction between absent and stale notes, and why acting on a stale one is dangerous. This gives clear conditional guidance without referencing alternatives, which is sufficient because the condition itself is the differentiator.

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