List Annotations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral details: 'Page loading is bounded; a page-scoped failure returns its structured error directly and successful reads include `coverage`.' This goes beyond the annotation and informs the agent about edge cases and return characteristics.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: scope, parameter constraints, and behavioral edge cases. The description is front-loaded with the core action and is free of fluff.

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 simplicity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: the resource being read, the parameter exclusivity, optional categories, and potential partial failure behavior. No important gaps remain.

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 already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the mutual exclusivity and default for includeCategories but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Read the native annotations on a page or node (and subtree)', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this read tool from the sibling write tool annotation_set and other list-style tools like style_list or variable_list.

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 states the core usage rule ('exactly one of pageId or nodeId is required') and mentions the includeCategories toggle. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the read-only intent and sibling set (annotation_set for writing) imply appropriate usage clearly.

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