list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ({items, count, hasMore}) and the pagination pattern (increment offset by limit when hasMore is true), which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, but 'List' implies no side effects.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and return contract; the second gives pagination instruction and alternatives. Every word 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?

For a list tool with a simple schema, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, return format, pagination behavior, and alternatives. It lacks details like sorting order or whether notes are from all folders, but these are minor for the tool's core use.

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?

The schema already covers parameter meanings with 100% coverage, including defaults and ranges. The description adds the relationship between limit/offset and the hasMore flag, explaining how to use the parameters together for pagination, which goes beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 the tool lists 'note summaries from Outlook with pagination', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by pointing to get_note for full details and search_notes for title-based search.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use alternatives: use get_note for full body content, use search_notes for finding by title. This gives clear when-not guidance for list_notes.

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