list_notes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by disclosing the shape of the return data (the seven per-note fields), but it says nothing about error behavior for an invalid part index, ordering, or how results differ from the ustx_* variant.

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 definition is a single compact statement with the field list front-loaded, and the bilingual English/Japanese duplication is conventional for this toolset. Nothing is padded, though the fragment structure means there is no leading verb to anchor the purpose.

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?

With no output schema, describing the returned fields is genuinely valuable, and the tool is simple (one param, no nesting). However, it leaves the only real risk points unaddressed: where the part index comes from and how this differs from the near-identical ustx_list_notes.

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% for the single required parameter 'part', an unlabeled integer. The description only implies 'part' means a voice part, but gives no index origin, range, or way to discover valid values, so the agent must guess where the integer comes from.

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 names a specific resource (notes of a voice part) and enumerates the returned fields (index, position, duration, tone, lyric, tuning, vibrato), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase and never distinguishes itself from the sibling ustx_list_notes, so the reader cannot tell which listing tool is the right one.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. needing a valid part index from the project), and no exclusion naming ustx_list_notes as the alternative. The only implied usage is 'when you want notes for a part,' which is derived from the noun phrase rather than stated.

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