notes_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a list operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'after' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all notes' means in terms of access permissions. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration - it's appropriately sized for a basic list operation.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the filtering parameters, return format, pagination approach, or operational constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without trial and error.

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 compensate. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't explain what parameters are available or their purposes. The 5 parameters (limit, after, properties, associations, archived) are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent guessing about their meanings and usage.

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 'List all notes with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('notes'), and specifies scope ('all notes') with optional filtering. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like notes_search or notes_get, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notes_search, notes_get, or notes_batch_read. The description mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't specify what types of filtering are available or when filtering should be used.

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