list-notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'List notes with optional filter, sort, and pagination.' It fails to mention important constraints like the 25-record page limit, 1,000-record cap, complete flag behavior, or the single-filter limitation. The matter_id example adds minor context but not enough for a mid score.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second sentence provides a useful usage example. No words are wasted, and every sentence contributes.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the input schema's property descriptions thoroughly cover pagination, filtering, and fields. The description adds the matter_id example, making the tool reasonably complete for a listing operation. It falls short only because it doesn't summarize response behavior, but the schema compensates.

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 88%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value by giving a concrete example of combining filter_by='matter_id' and filter_on=ID, which is not explicitly shown in the schema. This helps the agent understand how to apply the parameters together.

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 notes with optional filter, sort, and pagination. It also gives a specific example (filter_by='matter_id') that distinguishes it from other list tools like list-matters or list-contacts.

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 second sentence provides explicit guidance on the common use case of listing one matter's notes, telling the agent exactly which filter_by and filter_on values to use. This effectively communicates when and how to use the tool, and since there is no get-note sibling, no alternative is needed.

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