List notes

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

Annotations report readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: pages are served from a single snapshot, the cursor must be passed verbatim with unchanged filters, and a stale cursor fails with snapshot_expired requiring a fresh list without a cursor. This gives the agent important failure-mode knowledge not available from annotations or schema.

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?

Four sentences with no wasted words, key information front-loaded: action, ordering, filters, then return-content limits, then pagination protocol and failure mode. Every sentence adds operational guidance.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational context: what is returned, in what order, how paging works, and what happens when a cursor is stale. The only minor absence is an exact list of summary fields, but the term 'summaries' plus the explicit exclusion of body/transcript is sufficient for correct use.

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 explains note_type and folder_id as filters, and cursor semantics as snapshot-based pagination. However, it does not describe page_size, though schema constraints (default 20, maximum 100) make the parameter mostly self-evident and the omission is a minor gap rather than a fatal one.

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 action ('List notes'), the ordering ('newest first'), and the supported filters ('note_type and/or folder_id'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from note-content tools by noting it returns 'summaries only — no note body, no transcript', which differentiates it from get_note and get_note_transcript without ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when listing summaries filtered by note_type and/or folder_id, and when paginating with a snapshot cursor. It implies that body/transcript retrieval belongs elsewhere ('no note body, no transcript'), though it does not explicitly name get_note or search_notes as alternatives, stopping just short of a fully explicit routing guide.

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