teamleader_list_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or whether the response includes full note content or just summaries. It also doesn't state any rate limits or authentication requirements. The description is consistent with the read-only nature implied by 'List', but lacks explicit behavioral detail.

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 one concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose. It has no redundant phrases and is easy to parse.

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 list tool with only two required parameters and a complete schema, the description is adequate but misses guidance on pagination and return format. Since there is no output schema, the agent might need to know whether the response is a list of note summaries or full notes, which is not clarified.

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 100%, so the schema already defines 'subject_type' as an enum with valid values and 'subject_id' as the entity ID. The description adds context that the subject can be a contact, company, deal, or project, but doesn't add further detail on pagination parameters or required combinations beyond the schema.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('notes') with a specific scope ('attached to a specific subject'), and provides examples of valid subject types. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools that create, update, or get notes, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from other list tools like list_tasks.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need notes for a given subject) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It does not mention that it only lists, not retrieves a single note, nor does it contrast with other list tools.

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