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 of behavioral disclosure. It proactively states that it is fast, does not read note content, and excludes Recently Deleted by default. This is valuable beyond a simple 'list' statement, though it omits details like return format or auth requirements.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence adding a distinct, useful detail (speed, no content read, default filter). There is no redundant or filler language.

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 straightforward listing tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it lists, performance, and default filter behavior. It specifies 'folder and timestamps' as return fields but may omit other fields like note name/ID, leaving slight ambiguity. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the default value of include_deleted ('Recently Deleted is excluded by default'), which is not in the schema. It also implies that folder is a filter, though this is already described. This extra context justifies above baseline.

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 'List all notes with their folder and timestamps', which clearly specifies the verb (list), resource (notes), scope (all), and output fields. It distinguishes from siblings like read_note (content) and search_notes by explicitly noting it does not read content, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'Fast; does not read note content' gives clear context for when to use this tool—when only metadata is needed without reading contents. It also explains the default exclusion of Recently Deleted, which sets usage expectations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops 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.