list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: ordering ('newest'), the returned columns (id, title, modified, locked), and that only titles come back. It does not explain the default limit of 20 or whether results are paginated, which keeps it short of a 5 for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler; the scope constraint and default are front-loaded, and the return-field list is dense but directly useful.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and ordering itself, covers folder semantics, and routes to read_note. The only real gap is limit/pagination behavior, which matters for a list tool with a default cap of 20.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the folder parameter meaningfully ('name or id; empty is the default Notes folder') but says nothing about the limit parameter's effect, leaving one of two parameters undocumented on both sides.

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 and resource ('List the newest notes in a folder') plus the exact fields returned, and explicitly distinguishes itself from read_note ('Titles only; use read_note for the text'). An agent can pick this apart from list_note_folders, read_note, and search_reminders without opening any schema.

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?

Routes the agent to the alternative explicitly ('use read_note for the text') and clarifies the folder default ('empty is the default Notes folder'). It gives clear context for when this tool is right, though it offers no explicit exclusion beyond the read_note pointer.

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