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 that note bodies are truncated to 200 characters. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default limit, or how results are sorted despite the schema providing 'limit' and 'sort' parameters.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second adds critical information about truncation and the need to call 'read-note'. No unnecessary words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should hint at the return structure (e.g., list of note summaries). It only mentions truncated bodies but does not specify what other fields are included. This is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for any parameter. It does not reference or clarify any parameter details.

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?

Description states 'List all notes with specified conditions', clearly specifying the verb (list) and resource (notes). It also mentions truncation, which is important context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search-notes', which may have a similar purpose.

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 advises to use 'read-note' for full content, which is a useful guideline. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use, nor does it mention alternatives like 'search-notes'.

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