list_private_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that notes are visible only to organization members, adding context about visibility. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or potential rate limits, though the schema covers pagination fields.

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 long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes what the tool does and adds context about visibility. It covers the input parameters (via schema) but does not specify return field details or ordering. For a paginated list tool, this is mostly sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., resource_type and resource_id are listed but not explained further).

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 the tool lists internal (private) notes attached to an Elorus resource, with a specific verb and resource type. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'create_private_note' by indicating the action is listing, not creating.

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 tool should be used when needing private notes for a resource, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. There are no sibling list-note tools, so differentiation from other list tools (e.g., list_invoices) is not addressed.

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