teamleader_notes_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' and mentions required parameters, but doesn't explain pagination (page/page_size), return format, or whether it's a read-only operation. Since no output schema exists, the lack of return-value details is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 list tool, the description covers the core requirement and examples. However, it omits pagination behavior, sort order, and return structure. Since there is no output schema, the description should explain what the response looks like, which is missing.

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 coverage is 75%, with descriptions for subject_type, subject_id, and page_size. The description repeats the subject_type examples already in the schema, adding no new semantic value. The page parameter is undocumented in both places. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema mostly covers parameter meaning.

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 identifies the action ('List notes') and the resource scope ('linked to a subject') with concrete examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like teamleader_notes_create by focusing on the listing operation.

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 states that subject_type and subject_id are required, giving clear context for when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but there is no competing notes-list sibling, so the context is sufficient.

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