notes_list_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states 'List notes with optional filters' without disclosing behavior such as default limit, pagination, ordering behavior, or return format. It doesn't mention that it's a read-only operation or any side effects. The schema covers parameter details but not the tool's behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It's efficient and not bloated. It could arguably be slightly more informative, but for a simple list tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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 tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, output schema present), the description is minimally sufficient. It communicates the basic function but lacks contextual details like how filters combine (e.g., exact date vs range), default behavior when no filters are given, and any notes about ordering or limits. The schema fills in parameter details, but the description doesn't provide a holistic view of expected 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already documents all 7 parameters clearly, including defaults and examples. The description's mention of 'optional filters' aligns with the schema, but adds no new meaning beyond it.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List notes'. The phrase 'with optional filters' indicates the core capability, and the schema provides filter specifics. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like notes_list_tags, but the resource 'notes' is distinct enough that an agent can infer it's for note retrieval.

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 implies usage for listing notes, which is clear. However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., when to use list_tags instead) or any exclusions. There's no mention of prerequisites like having a child_id or using other tools to get IDs, though the schema hints at that for child_id. Adequate but not explicit.

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