ruddur_list_waypoint_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by mentioning the content.read scope requirement, which is not in annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, ordering, or what happens if no notes exist. Given the annotations already provide the core safety information, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The scope requirement is stated briefly without extra fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 description is short and relies on the tool name and siblings for context. It does not explain the meaning of 'Heading Waypoint' or how the required path parameters (id, waypointId) map to that concept. Since there is no output schema, it also does not describe what the returned list looks like or if there is pagination. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity around parameters and return format.

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%, but the schema's descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Path parameters: id, waypointId') and do not explain what id and waypointId refer to in this context. The description does not clarify which id is which. Since the schema already provides some description, the baseline is 3, but the lack of semantic clarification about the two path parameters is a notable gap.

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 'List notes on a Heading Waypoint' clearly states a specific verb (list), resource (notes), and the context (a Heading Waypoint). This distinguishes it from siblings like ruddur_create_waypoint_note, ruddur_update_waypoint_note, and ruddur_delete_waypoint_note, as well as from ruddur_list_waypoints which lists waypoints rather than notes.

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 provides clear context by indicating this is a read operation on a Heading Waypoint, and it adds a prerequisite (requires scope: content.read). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose implicitly covers the main use case. The sibling tool list makes it obvious that other note tools are for mutation, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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