list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that locked notes are included with withheld bodies, explains folder_id behavior, and clarifies status values. It omits pagination and sorting details, but for a read-only list tool it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no fluff. The phrasing 'folder_id=""' is slightly awkward but compact.

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 covers the core purpose and key edge cases (locked notes, folder filtering) but misses important operational details like pagination (limit, start_after) and filtering by tags/pinned. The output schema presumably covers return shape, but the tool's overall behavior is not fully specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds clarity for folder_id and status but ignores tags, limit, pinned, and start_after, leaving four of six parameters unexplained.

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 states 'List the caller's notes,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_note (single note) and list_shared_notes (shared notes) by specifying 'caller's 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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus search_notes or get_note. It implies usage through the listing action and provides parameter details, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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