export_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the exact output encoding of both formats and the non-obvious rule that locked notes are included with their body withheld. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or whether the default limit of 5000 truncates silently.

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?

Roughly four dense sentences with the purpose and the sibling exclusion front-loaded, then format details, then the locked-note caveat. Every sentence earns its place, though the parenthetical mechanics of format="ndjson" read slightly cramped.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be restated, and the description covers purpose, alternatives, format behavior, and locked-note handling. The gap is filter semantics for tags/tag_match/folder_id/limit, which are left entirely to defaults.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only does so for 'format', which is explained thoroughly (ndjson one object per line vs markdown concatenated '# Title' blocks). The other four parameters -- tags, tag_match (a string with no enum, so 'any'/'all' semantics are unclear), folder_id, and limit -- get no explanation anywhere.

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 ('Bulk export of the caller's active notes') plus the scope that separates it from paged retrieval. It explicitly contrasts itself with list_notes, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('backups/scripting'), when-not ('not paged browsing'), and names the alternative ('use list_notes for that'). No inference is required to pick the right tool.

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