maimemo_list_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful scope detail that only notes created by the current user are returned. It does not describe return shape, pagination, or behavior when a word has no notes.

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 very short lines, with the resource front-loaded and the scope qualifier second. The second line largely restates the first with the 'self-created' qualifier, a minor redundancy, but there is no wasted text.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description never hints at what a returned note contains or how results are ordered or limited.

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 100% and the single parameter voc_id is documented in the schema as '单词 id'. The description corroborates this by tying retrieval to a word ('单词下'), but adds no format, ID-source, or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a clear verb+resource: '获取' (retrieve) '助记' (notes/mnemonics), and adds the scope '单词下自己创建的' (created by yourself under a word). This lets an agent distinguish it from list_interpretations, which operates on a different resource. However, it never names or contrasts a sibling tool explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_interpretations, create_note, or update_note. The phrase '自己创建的' implies a personal-scope filter, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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