list_endnotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly labels the operation as read-only, which is the most important behavioral trait for an agent deciding whether calling it is safe. It could add more context about file requirements or error conditions, but the read-only disclosure is meaningful.

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 three focused sentences: first the output fields, then the mutation alternatives, then the read-only guarantee. Every sentence earns its place, and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple list operation with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete: it covers scope, output contents, related mutation tools, and read-only behavior. The only notable gap is the undocumented file_path parameter, but the one-parameter shape and 'in the document' phrasing make the gaps relatively minor.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter, file_path, is not explained anywhere in the description. The phrase 'in the document' weakly implies the parameter identifies the target document, but this is not explicit and does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 identifies the tool's action as listing every endnote in the document and specifies the exact output fields: id, display position, and full text. This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that distinguishes the tool from nearby siblings like list_footnotes and the mutation tools.

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 when not to use this tool: use add_endnote/edit_endnote/delete_endnote for modifications and validate_notes for integrity checks. This provides clear alternatives and conditions, so an agent knows this is the read-only listing operation.

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