list_notes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, so the description does not need to repeat it. It adds useful context about the source and scope of the notes ('vendor has shared with you in a workspace'), but it does not describe potential behavioral nuances like ordering, pagination, or whether archived/deleted notes appear. This is acceptable for a simple read-only list tool but not richly transparent.

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 immediately identifies the resource and its provenance, with clarifying examples in parentheses. The appositive 'the portal's Notes tab' reinforces the product context without wasted words. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 low-complexity list tool with two parameters fully documented in the schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, this description is mostly complete. It explains what the notes are, where they come from, and where they appear in the UI. It does not explicitly state the return shape, but the absence of an output schema and the simple list nature make that a minor gap.

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 both parameters ('workspace_id' and 'origin') are already explained in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail beyond implying the workspace scoping. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource: notes shared by the vendor within a workspace, exemplified by 'meeting notes, AI recaps' and tied to 'the portal's Notes tab.' It does not use an explicit action verb like 'Lists,' but the tool name and context make the operation unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings such as list_meetings and list_messages by defining the specific note domain.

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 usage context: it points to the portal's Notes tab and specifies the notes are vendor-shared within a workspace, so an agent can reasonably know when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to avoid confusion with sibling tools.

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