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. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the return excludes note bodies, which is critical for setting expectations. It also indicates a tree structure, implying hierarchy. This is meaningful disclosure beyond the schema, though it does not cover permissions or other side-effect info.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. Every term ('project', 'note/category tree', 'without note bodies') carries meaningful information, demonstrating excellent conciseness and front-loaded structure.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the main output scope and the exclusion of bodies, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It lacks some context about alternatives, but that is partially addressed elsewhere.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that project_id identifies the project via the phrase 'a project's', which adds minimal meaning over the parameter name itself. There is no format guidance, example, or elaboration, so the parameter semantics are barely enhanced.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a project's note/category tree'), with a key differentiator ('without note bodies') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_note or search_notes. This is exactly the kind of specific verb+resource+scope that merits a top score.

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 usage by saying 'without note bodies', suggesting this is for structural viewing rather than content retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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