list_notes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields and optional filters, but does not mention default behavior (e.g., sort order, default limit), potential side effects, or authentication requirements. This is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves 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 sentences are used, containing only relevant information. No redundant or extraneous text. The key purpose and options are front-loaded.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately describes the return format. The tool is simple with only two optional parameters. However, it does not mention pagination or default limit behavior, which are common for listing tools. Still, it is mostly complete for its complexity.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (limit and folder), and the description reiterates these options. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal value beyond summarizing the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 notes), the source (Apple Notes), and the returned fields (title, folder, dates, pinned status, snippet). It distinguishes from siblings like create_note and delete_note by focusing on listing, but does not explicitly differentiate from search_notes, which might offer more advanced filtering.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_notes. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description assumes the agent will infer usage from context.

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