list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention cursor-based pagination and optional filtering/sorting, but it does not disclose default response behavior (e.g., whether note content is included), response shape, or any rate limits. Still, it accurately conveys that this is a read-style listing operation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs meaningful capabilities without unnecessary detail. 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?

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to provide a useful overview. It does cover the main purpose and capabilities, but it omits guidance on when to choose this over search_notes, and it does not explain return-value structure or pagination mechanics. The schema compensates for parameter details, but the lack of usage alternatives and behavior specifics leaves some gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain individual parameters. It adds only a high-level mention of filtering, sorting, and pagination, which is already reflected by the schema properties. No additional semantic value beyond the schema is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all notes in mem.ai'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_note (single note) and search_notes (search). It also communicates the optional filtering, sorting, and pagination capabilities at a high level.

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 clearly implies use for enumerating all notes with optional filters, which is distinct from search or single-note retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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