list_notes

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the tool is read-only (list) and applies to the current project, but lacks details on pagination, ordering, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The output schema exists but doesn't cover behavioral aspects.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter explanation is concise. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, for which project, and the filter options. It is slightly lacking on prerequisites like login/project selection, but still fairly 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 compensates by listing the three possible status values ('all', 'open', 'resolved') and the default. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition. However, it does not explain the semantics of each status (e.g., what 'resolved' means).

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 clearly states the action (List) and the resource (public notes feed), differentiating it from sibling tools like create_note and resolve_note. It also mentions the status filter options, which aligns with the input schema.

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 implies usage for listing notes in the current project's public feed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others (e.g., list documents) or mention exclusions. The context of 'current project' is noted but not explained as a prerequisite.

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