ftrack_list_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or any other behavioral traits such as whether only certain entity types are supported.

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 no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource.

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?

This is a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, but the description is still under-specified. It does not mention note ordering, response format, valid entity types, or any limitations. The agent is left without enough context to fully predict the tool's behavior beyond the literal '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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions ('Entity type', 'Entity ID', 'Maximum number of notes to return'). The description's 'for an entity' aligns with the required parameters but offers no extra depth.

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 the action ('List') and resource ('notes') with a scope ('for an entity'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like ftrack_list_projects, ftrack_list_tasks, and ftrack_list_users because it targets notes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ftrack_query or ftrack_search. It does not mention which entity types support notes, any prerequisites, or when this tool is preferable over other list tools.

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