list_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no ordering of results, no note about whether limit truncates silently, no indication of what each note record contains. It does not contradict the annotations, but it earns little credit over them.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and then the filters. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to learn what comes back, and it says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens when limit is hit. The status examples partially compensate for the 0% schema coverage, but for a 4-parameter listing tool the description is only minimally complete.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it does for three of four parameters: it explains 'type', 'tag', and notably gives concrete 'status' values (task todo/doing/done, decision accepted) for a parameter the schema types as a free-form string. Only 'limit' is left unexplained, hence a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List notes') plus the three optional filter axes, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as search, recent, or read_note, so it falls short of a 5.

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 word 'optionally filtered' hints at usage but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from this description why it should call list_notes instead of search or recent for a given query.

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