list_note_recipients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the important constraint that the note must be owned by the caller, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what happens for non-owned notes (e.g., error vs. empty list) or any other side effects. The verb 'List' implies read-only, but that is not made explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose and the key constraint. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.

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?

Given there is only one parameter, an output schema exists, and the tool is straightforward, the description is largely complete. It covers the essential purpose and the ownership constraint. It lacks detail on error handling or return format, but the output schema likely handles the latter. For the simplicity of the tool, this is sufficient without being overly verbose.

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?

The schema provides a bare 'note_id' string with no description, so the tool description must compensate. The description clarifies that the note must be owned by the caller, adding meaning to the parameter. It does not specify format or additional constraints, but for a single required parameter, the added ownership context is valuable and mostly sufficient.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'who a note (owned by the caller) has been shared with.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_notes (which lists one's own notes) or list_shared_notes (which likely lists notes shared with the caller). The ownership constraint is explicitly stated, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need to see the sharing recipients of a note you own. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the specificity of the description implies the appropriate situation. Since it lacks exclusions or explicit alternative references, it falls short of a 5.

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