list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavioral traits: default filtering, sorting order, archived inclusion rules, and the v2 quirk that archived notes always report processed=false. It does not cover auth scope requirements (mentioned only in schema for ownerEmail/creatorEmail), rate limits, or return format, but it is substantially transparent for a list operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers sorting, defaults, and the archived quirk. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 12-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides essential context on default behavior, sorting, and the tricky archived/processed interaction. It omits some details such as expected response shape and pagination usage beyond the cursor parameter, but the schema covers individual parameter meanings.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema by explaining the default archived/processed behavior and the interaction between archived=true and omitting processed, which clarifies how to use those parameters together.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (Productboard notes/insights) and notes pagination, sorting, and filters. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_all_notes or search_notes, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clearly explains the default behavior (processed + unprocessed, non-archived) and how to include or fetch only archived notes, including the v2 quirk. It does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_notes or list_all_notes, so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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