list_paragraphs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious interpretive context: what the inline markers mean ([editor visible], [runs on selection change]) and that unmarked paragraphs are properly finalized, including the underlying field logic (editorHide, runOnSelectionChange). It does not cover ordering or pagination, but the marker legend is substantial added value.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence, then the marker legend, which is dense but every clause carries semantic meaning. The trailing Args block largely duplicates the schema and is the only wasted space.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description needn't enumerate return values; it instead supplies the one thing the schema can't — how to read the inline flags. Combined with the stated scope exclusion, nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly 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 description coverage is 0% and the sole parameter is only restated ('notebook_id: The notebook ID to list paragraphs for') without format, example, or what happens for an unknown/foreign notebook. Because there is only one obvious scoping parameter, the gap is small — minimum-viable rather than deficient.

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 (list) and resource (paragraph metadata) with the enumerated fields (index, id, title, status) and an explicit scope exclusion ('without code or output'), which separates it from siblings like get_paragraph_code and get_paragraph_forms. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the 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?

The 'without code or output' phrasing implicitly routes the agent to the get_paragraph_* siblings when full content is needed, but there is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead' statement, nor any mention of prerequisites or when listing is preferable to fetching a single paragraph. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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