list_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are summaries, pinned first, and that bodies are not fetched. It also states each entry carries note_id, folder, and modification time. This gives the agent a solid understanding of the return shape and non-destructive nature. It doesn't mention pagination or default sorting, but those are already in the schema, so the description adds value without redundancy.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded ('List notes as summaries, pinned first, without fetching their bodies'), followed by output details and a routing hint. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easily scanable.

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 five optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns (summaries with key fields), ordering (pinned first), and a pointer to get_note for full content. It doesn't explicitly mention how sort affects ordering or pagination, but those are covered by the schema. An agent could call this correctly with the provided information, though a brief note about search_notes as a text-search alternative would round it out.

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 coverage is 100% and all parameters (sort, limit, offset, folder_id, include_trash) are well-documented there. The description adds no new parameter semantics—it doesn't explain the sort options or offset/limit behavior beyond what the schema already states. It does mention that note_id is needed by other tools, which is output-related rather than parameter-related. Since the schema is thorough, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'List notes as summaries, pinned first, without fetching their bodies.' It clearly differentiates from get_note (which fetches bodies) and implicitly from search_notes (which is a different operation). The agent immediately knows what this tool does and what it doesn't.

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 explicitly routes the agent to get_note for reading a single note: 'Use get_note to read one.' This is clear contextual guidance. However, it doesn't mention when to prefer this over search_notes or list_folders, so the guidance is not exhaustive. It provides a clear also-use hint but no when-not-to-use exclusions.

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