list_shared_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the scope is 'received copies' and the order is 'most recently shared first'. However, it does not disclose other traits such as read-only behavior, pagination, or authorization requirements, though these may be implied by 'list'.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, states the scope, and specifies ordering. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and key behavior (received copies, sorting). It does not mention edge cases like empty results or pagination, but given the simplicity and presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete. Slightly lower than 5 because it lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are trivially clear. The description adds context about the result set (received copies, ordering) that is not in the schema, which is useful. With no parameters, the baseline is 4.

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 the action ('List') and the specific resource ('notes that have been shared with the caller by someone else'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notes by specifying 'received copies' and sorting order. This is a specific verb+resource with scope that differentiates it.

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 implies when to use the tool (to see notes shared by others) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like list_notes or search_notes. The context signals show sibling tool names, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling.

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