List Notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds meaningful scoping context ('active', 'owned', 'plain-text') that shapes the return set, which is valuable for an agent selecting or invoking the tool. However, it does not clarify filtering details (e.g., whether 'active' excludes completed or only archived notes).

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds meaning, with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for a simple 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 zero-parameter list tool with rich annotations and a clear description, the context provided is largely sufficient. It omits return format details, but the name and description imply a collection of note objects. Minor ambiguity around 'active' and 'owned' could be improved, but overall the tool is straightforward and complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description's qualifiers (active, owned, plain-text) effectively serve as implicit input context, clarifying what will be returned without needing schema coverage.

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 active owned plain-text Notes' uses a specific verb (list) with a well-defined resource and qualifiers (active, owned, plain-text) that clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like list_tasks or list_archive_items. It precisely conveys what is listed and what subset is included.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_inbox_items, list_archive_items, or list_tasks. It only states the purpose without mentioning alternative tools or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and qualifiers.

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