list_conversation_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: chronological ordering, field list, createdAt format, author fields, and the source enum values.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then provides compact return-shape details, then routes the agent to alternatives. Every sentence carries useful information with zero wasted space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's explanation of returned note fields, ordering, and source values is especially valuable. It also covers the relationship to get_conversation and query_conversations, making the definition complete for correct invocation.

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% for both required parameters (agentId and convoId). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for these identifiers, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the human review notes on a conversation'), adds ordering scope ('a timeline, oldest first'), and enumerates the returned note fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_conversation and query_conversations by explaining the overlap and alternate lookup route.

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?

Names the alternative for finding conversations by note content ('query_conversations with hasNotes / noteContains') and notes that get_conversation also returns review notes. It provides clear context and alternatives but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or when to prefer get_conversation's bundled notes.

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