rednote_my_notes

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the read-only nature ('Read only'), the sort order ('newest first'), and implies an authenticated session ('logged-in account'), which is meaningful. It says nothing about pagination, the limit cap, rate limits, or failure modes for an unauthenticated account, leaving notable gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result shape, with no filler. Slightly dense in packing four output fields mid-sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and ordering, covering the return contract. But it omits any explanation of the 'limit' parameter, its 30 maximum, or pagination behavior, so an agent cannot call the tool optimally from the description alone.

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 explain the single 'limit' parameter (integer, max 30, exclusiveMin 0) — and it never mentions it. The field list it gives (noteId, title, likes, url) describes return values, not the input parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('the logged-in account's own notes') and enumerates the returned fields (noteId, title, likes, url) with ordering ('newest first'). The 'own notes' scoping naturally distinguishes it from siblings like rednote_search and rednote_get_note without needing to name them.

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 closing sentence gives a concrete downstream hint ('Use the url for comments and replies on your own notes'), which is useful. However, it never says when to use this tool versus rednote_search or rednote_get_note, nor any exclusion or prerequisite beyond the implied login. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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