list_notes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses ordering and trash exclusion, adding useful behavior beyond a bare 'list notes.' However, it doesn't describe return format or pagination behavior beyond limit parameter in schema.

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?

Three short sentences, each adds distinct information: action+ordering, optional scoping, trash exclusion. No filler or repetition.

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 simple list tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior well. Missing details like returned fields, but the sibling get_note implies list returns summaries; still, the description is fairly complete for typical use.

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?

Input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (limit: max rows/default 25; folder: from list_folders), giving 100% schema coverage. The description's mention of folder scoping adds only slight emphasis but no new parameter-specific meaning.

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 uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'notes', states ordering ('newest first') and scope ('Optionally scoped to one folder'). This clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_note (single note) and search_notes (search).

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?

Conveys clear context: lists notes with optional folder scoping and trash excluded. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use (e.g., for full-text search use search_notes).

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