notes_all

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

Well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation it already has: it discloses the full-disk-access requirement for the SQLite fast path, the fallback to Automation enumeration, the osascript timeout risk on very large libraries, and that the fallback is all-or-nothing. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs to interpret partial failure.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, scope, and exclusions in the first clause, then layered operational detail. It is dense with jargon (NoteStore.sqlite, osascript) but each clause carries distinct information, so little could be cut without losing behavioral signal.

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?

Though an output schema exists, the description still previews the pointer fields, and it covers permissions, degradation, and failure modes for a tool whose behavior varies by environment. Nothing needed to call it correctly or interpret results is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes a parameterless call and adds no misleading guidance about filters or options.

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 verb and resource with exact scope: 'List the 25 newest notes as pointers (id + Account / Folder + snippet), excluding Recently Deleted.' It also names the field shape returned, so an agent knows exactly what it gets without opening the schema, and it points to the sibling note_bodies for full content.

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 'See note_bodies' pointer plus the pointer-vs-body distinction makes it clear this is the lightweight listing tool, and the fast-path/Automation detail explains environmental selection. It doesn't give an explicit 'use X instead when...' exclusion statement, so it falls just short of a 5.

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