list_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filtering and search capabilities' but doesn't clarify key behaviors like pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter), default sorting, error handling, or whether it's read-only (though implied by 'list'). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence: 'List notes with optional filtering and search capabilities.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (6 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance on behavior and results would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate.

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 all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it only generically mentions 'optional filtering and search' without detailing specific parameters. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'List notes with optional filtering and search capabilities.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('notes'), and mentions optional features. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'get_recent_notes,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_notes' and 'get_recent_notes' available, there's no indication of when this general listing tool is preferred over more specific ones, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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