fenbs_list_context_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the returned field set (title, project, category, author, timestamp, text preview) plus the truncation default of the first 200 characters. It does not state permissions or that the operation is read-only, but 'list' combined with the field disclosure makes the behavior clear.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero padding, front-loading what the tool returns and its ids, then the truncation flag, then the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description effectively supplies the return shape and the truncation semantics, and it routes to the correct sibling. Nothing needed to call this two-parameter, zero-required read tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description mostly restates them (full gives the whole text; project can be "everything"). It adds the useful framing that project-filters are about scope applicability, but that is marginal value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (list the context notes on this board) and immediately distinguishes itself from fenbs_get_context, which is described as the tool to read before working. An agent can tell these two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit routing: fenbs_get_context is "what to read before working; this is how to find a note to change." It also states the downstream purpose (ids needed by fenbs_update_context_note and fenbs_delete_context_note), so when-to-use is unmistakable.

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