list_dummy_notes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint all true/non-destructive), lowering the bar. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the overwrite behavior for has_minutes=True notes on save, the recommendation of diff_minutes_against_saved, and the interpretation of minutes_saved_utc (null when absent). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by the entry-point sentence, a structured Returns block, a warning, and an Examples section. Each section earns its place, though the Returns block is somewhat dense with field detail. Slightly long but uniformly useful with no filler.

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?

Complete for an entry-point list tool with an output schema present. It explains the workflow (start here, forward note_id), return semantics, the overwrite hazard, and usage/exclusion examples referencing the correct siblings (read_meeting_note, diff_minutes_against_saved). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document for parameters, and the description instead enriches the output semantics — clarifying that note_id is the key to pass onward and defining has_minutes/minutes_saved_utc meaning, which compensates fully for the empty input schema.

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 (조회/retrieves) and resource (synthetic unstructured meeting notes included in the education package), and clarifies the list nature. The entry-point framing and the explicit 'do not use when you have note_id → read_meeting_note' differentiates it from siblings. Distinguishes from list_saved_minutes by emphasizing the synthetic/dummy nature of the data.

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?

Explicitly states it is the starting point for all minutes work and that note_id should flow to other tools. Provides three worked examples of when to use and the single exclusion condition (already knowing note_id and needing the original text), naming read_meeting_note as the alternative. Nothing is left to inference.

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