List project notes

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description isn't burdened with safety disclosure. It still adds real context annotations cannot carry: results are returned oldest first, dates appear in the account's date format, and each record includes a file-attachment count.

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 lead sentence front-loads the resource and the field summary, and the second sentence adds the useful details. The opening phrase is effectively restated in the second sentence ('notes on a project's Notes tab' twice), which is minor waste but not harmful.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (title, text, author, timestamp, attachment count) and the sort order. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination or whether an empty tab returns an empty list.

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 100% and project_id is fully described in the schema, including the hint to use list_projects. The description only implies project scoping through 'a project's Notes tab' and adds no format or constraint details beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: reads the notes on a Contractor Foreman project's Notes tab, and enumerates what each note contains. It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling add_project_note or from list_project_files, which also surface project-scoped data.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Reads the notes kept on…' and the oldest-first ordering, so an agent can infer this is a read path. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to add_project_note for the write counterpart.

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