Matter / contact notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuine trait, the 'newest first' ordering, but says nothing about pagination (despite a page_token parameter), the default/maximum page size, or permission requirements for reading matter/contact 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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded before the sort-order detail. It is tight, though arguably too terse given how much is left unsaid.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 5 undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It omits pagination semantics, the mutual exclusivity of matter_id vs contact_id, the meaning of query, and any indication of return shape.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at matter_id and contact_id via 'of a matter or a contact'; limit, query (presumably a text filter), and page_token are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (lists), resource (notes), and scope (of a matter or a contact), plus a sort order. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling clio_note_create, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from other list tools.

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 phrase 'of a matter or a contact' implies the agent must supply matter_id or contact_id to scope the call, which is useful since the schema marks zero parameters as required. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement of mutual exclusivity between the two ID modes, and no named alternatives.

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