list_notes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the lower bar applies. The description adds non-obvious server behavior — exact category matching — and a response-size optimization, which are genuinely beyond the structured fields. Pagination behavior for chunkCursor/chunkSize is still not described.

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, front-loaded with purpose then the two non-obvious gotchas. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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-required-param list tool with a fully documented schema and a rich annotation set, this is nearly complete. The remaining gap is that pagination flow (chunkCursor/chunkSize) and pruneBefore semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description exceeds it by explaining why recursive matters (exact-match category semantics) and what exclude is for (shrinking the response). pruneBefore and the chunk parameters get no added meaning in the text.

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 notes') and immediately narrows scope with 'optionally filtered by category'. It is distinguishable from get_note/list_categories by the plural listing semantics, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: pass recursive=true when you want subcategories because matching is exact, and use exclude=["content"] when only metadata is needed. It stops short of stating when-not to use this tool or naming an alternative tool.

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