List notes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. However, it adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination details, behavior when both matter_id and contact_id are provided). With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence with no waste. Front-loaded action and scope. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (list notes with read-only and idempotent annotations, no output schema), the description provides the minimum. It lacks details on ordering, default behavior, or error conditions when no parameters are provided. Could be more complete but meets basic needs.

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?

Input schema includes 4 parameters (matter_id, contact_id, limit, page_size) with 50% description coverage (limit and page_size have descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how to use the parameters together or provide examples. Baseline 3 for adequate compensation.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Lists notes attached to a matter or contact,' clearly identifying the action and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clio_create_note (create) and other list tools by specifying the resource (notes) and filtering context.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clio_search_contacts for broader search). Usage is implied (for listing notes on a matter or contact) but not clarified with when-not scenarios or recommended prerequisites.

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