list-notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares the tool as read-only, implying no side effects. It also lists the returned attributes, giving the agent a clear expectation of the output. No contradictions are present.

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 sentences, front-loading the action and key information. Every word adds value: the action, what is returned, data types, and usage context. No unnecessary elaboration.

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 the low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how it fits into a workflow (inspect → update/delete). No critical information is missing.

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 schema has 100% coverage (single 'sceneIdentifier' parameter with a description). The tool description adds value by specifying that the parameter refers to the scene holding 'placeables' and by explaining the return fields, which helps contextualize the parameter's role. This goes slightly beyond the baseline of 3.

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 ('List') and resource ('MAP-NOTE PIN on a scene'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, position, label, etc.), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create-scene-notes, update-note, and delete-note.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Read-only' and positions the tool as 'the inspect step that feeds update-note / delete-note', providing clear context on when to use it. While it does not list alternatives or when not to use it, the context is sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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