list_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: password-protected notes are silently excluded, and only metadata is returned. It stays silent on pagination behavior via cursor, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with the core action first, then a scope exclusion, then the routing pointer. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the exclusion rule plus metadata-only scope are helpful. However, with zero schema description coverage the description should at least hint at filtering and pagination, and it does not.

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% across four parameters (limit, cursor, folderId, accountId), so the description carries the burden and provides nothing. It never explains that folderId scopes the listing or how cursor/limit paginate, leaving the agent to infer semantics from names alone.

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 accessible note metadata'), and the word 'metadata' plus the pointer to read_note makes clear this does not return note content. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_notes or explain the accessible-scope qualifier.

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 sentence 'Read a note to obtain its revision' routes the agent to read_note, but only for one narrow purpose. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_notes for filtered retrieval, nor any prerequisite information.

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