list_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that port labels are excluded by default, going beyond the annotations, but says nothing about ordering, volume, or scope limits of the listing.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by the one conditional caveat. No filler or 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional boolean and an output schema that already defines return values, the description covers what an agent needs. Minor omissions (result ordering, whether it covers all pages of the canvas) are not critical here.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description restates the default behavior of include_port_labels ('left out unless ... is true'), which marginally reinforces rather than extends the schema, so the 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 (List) and resource (text notes on the logical canvas) plus what is returned (ids and positions), which cleanly separates it from add_note and remove_note. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby list_drawings sibling, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and the note about port labels; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_drawings or show_workspace. The include_port_labels sentence does convey a conditional behavior, which is a partial substitute for guidance.

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