Get note operation history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying 'committed operation metadata' and 'without reading history content or modifying the journal', which clarifies that it does not expose content and only affects committed operations, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb-first structure. It conveys the action, scope, and exclusions in just 14 words, with no superfluous information.

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 an output schema available and annotations indicating a safe read operation, the description is largely complete. It covers the core action, scope, and non-modifying behavior. It could slightly benefit from mentioning the 'limit' parameter, but the output schema and simple nature make this a minor gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'note' parameter through 'for one note', but it does not mention the 'limit' parameter or its behavior. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the lack of description for 'limit' leaves a gap in semantics.

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 clearly states 'List committed operation metadata for one note' with a specific verb (List) and resource (operation metadata for one note). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly clarifying it does not read history content or modify the journal, making it distinct from tools like get_note or revert_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 provides clear context on when to use: when you need operation metadata for a single note without content access or journal modification. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope is well-defined, and the 'without' clauses imply exclusions.

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