upnote_list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the 'newest first' ordering behavior, which is useful. But it does not state whether the limit caps results, whether it returns full note content or metadata, or how missing/incorrect notebook titles are handled.

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: 'List the notes in one notebook, newest first.' Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The core invocation is clear, but with no output schema and a minimal description, an agent may not know what fields are returned or how the limit interacts with ordering. The description is adequate as a minimum viable definition but leaves gaps that would help a caller fully predict behavior.

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%, with both 'notebook' and 'limit' documented. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that notes are scoped to a single notebook. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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') with a clear resource ('the notes in one notebook') and an ordering qualifier ('newest first'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like upnote_recent_notes by scoping to a single notebook, though it does not explicitly name or contrast an alternative.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you want notes from a specific notebook. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over upnote_recent_notes or upnote_search_notes, nor any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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