goodnotes_list_outlines

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing pagination and that incomplete scans are reported, which is useful behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations. It stops short of describing the shape of the entries or how a conflict hash should be used.

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 dense sentences with the core capability front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence mixes a real capability (incomplete-scan reporting) with unexplained jargon such as "conflict hashes" and a scope note about editing that reads as an afterthought.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return semantics; it hints at entry/page identities and conflict hashes but does not explain structure or what a caller should do with them. Combined with an unexplained required `url` argument, an agent has enough to attempt a call but not to predict its results confidently.

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 carries the full burden. "Paginated" loosely gestures at limit/offset, but the required `url` parameter is never explained (what document it identifies, accepted form), and neither limit nor offset bounds/defaults are addressed.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("List native outline entries") and adds what the entries carry (stable entry/page identities and conflict hashes), which separates it from generic siblings like goodnotes_list or goodnotes_list_pages. It never names an alternative tool, so the differentiation is implied by the word "outline" rather than made explicit.

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 scope qualifier "native" plus "nested/imported outline structures are not supported for editing" signals when this tool applies, but the exclusion is framed around editing, which is confusing for a read-only listing tool. There is no direct statement of when to prefer this over goodnotes_list_pages or how to handle outlines that are nested or imported.

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