tp_list_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and date range, without mentioning that it is a read-only operation (though 'list' implies it), that results may be paginated, or that the athlete parameter is available for coach accounts. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's basic function.

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, clear sentence: 'List calendar notes for a date range.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains zero fluff, and conveys the essential information in six words.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description provides only the basic action and date range. It does not explain return format, pagination, authorization requirements, or the optional athlete filter. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for a tool with these complexity signals.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents start_date, end_date, and athlete. The description mentions the date range but does not add any new parameter semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds marginal value.

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 tool lists calendar notes for a date range, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('calendar notes'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tp_get_note (which fetches a single note) and tp_get_events (which lists events, not notes). The date range scope is explicit and additional to the tool name.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that this is for retrieving notes over a range as opposed to a specific note, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The schema mentions the optional athlete parameter for coach accounts, but the description itself offers no usage context.

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