list_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the fixed page size (20 items) and cursor-based pagination pattern. Missing safety classification (read-only implications), rate limits, or return structure disclosure.

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 compact sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose and constraint (20 items), followed immediately by usage instructions. Appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter listing tool: covers pagination mechanics and page size. However, without an output schema, the description omits return value structure (what fields the notes contain), which would be necessary for complete contextual understanding.

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% (since_id fully documented). Description adds value by clarifying the pagination workflow—specifically that subsequent requests should use the last note ID from the previous page—providing semantic context beyond the schema's basic cursor definition.

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?

Clear verb-resource combination ('获取笔记列表' / Get note list) and specifies the fixed page size (20 items). However, it fails to distinguish from sibling list_topic_notes regarding scope (global vs topic-scoped lists).

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?

Provides specific pagination instructions (first request use 0, subsequent use last ID from previous page), which guides invocation. However, lacks guidance on when to use this versus list_topic_notes or other filtering alternatives.

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