List your Notes

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

The annotations already convey that the tool is read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds a small behavioral detail: results are limited to published notes and ordered newest first. It does not disclose response shape or pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds useful information about the resource, the scope, and the ordering.

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 description is adequate for a simple, read-only list operation, and annotations plus the input schema cover safety and most parameters. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain the return shape or the meaning of offset, and it does not explicitly guide the agent toward sibling tools for other note states.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level information. The schema documents limit and publication well, but offset has no schema description and the tool description does not explain that offset is for pagination. With only 67% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Notes'), and a clear scope ('you have published'), and it adds the ordering trait ('newest first'). This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_drafts and list_scheduled_notes, which cover other note states.

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 implies the use case: retrieve the user's published notes. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over related alternatives such as list_drafts, list_scheduled_notes, or list_posts, nor does it state any exclusions.

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