list_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 'Read-only'. It adds useful behavioral context: results include full note content and a version field, and that version is needed for update_note. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, adds an alternative, and includes a usage pointer, all in a compact form.

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 read-only list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers scope, excludes attachments, and mentions the version field. It doesn't explicitly mention pagination or ordering, but the output schema and simple nature make that less critical.

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 only parameter, item_key, has no schema description and the description gives only indirect semantics ('filed under an item'). This is minimal but sufficient for a single, self-explanatory parameter; it doesn't add deeper detail but doesn't mislead.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'List the notes filed under an item'. It immediately distinguishes itself from list_attachments, which is the primary sibling tool that could be confused with this one.

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 states that this tool is not for file attachments and points to list_attachments as the alternative. It also tells the agent to pass the returned version to update_note, giving direct usage guidance.

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