List Annotations

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

The description adds detail beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by specifying that subtree annotations are included for nodes and that categories can be optionally retrieved. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and constraint, and every word adds value. No unnecessary elaboration.

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 presence of output schema, annotations, and relatively simple parameters, the description adequately covers the essential behavior and constraints. It could clarify subtree behavior for pageId, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description restates the mutual exclusivity of pageId and nodeId and the optional nature of includeCategories, but adds no new semantic information beyond what is in the 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?

The description clearly states it reads native annotations on a page or node (and subtree), differentiating it from sibling tools like annotation_set (write). The verb 'Read' and specific resource 'native annotations' provide a precise purpose.

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 explicitly states the constraint 'exactly one of pageId or nodeId is required' and mentions the optional includeCategories parameter. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the read/write distinction with annotation_set is implied.

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