list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral context: results are ordered by 'most recently updated first' and the response omits note bodies. It does not detail pagination or auth, but for a simple read-only list, this is sufficient and goes beyond a bare statement.

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 efficiently structured: a clear first line, a brief note on return value and alternatives, and a concise parameter description. No wasted words, and the most important 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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description provides all necessary context: purpose, ordering, response contents, and parameter behavior. It is complete for its complexity band.

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 zero description coverage for the 'tag' parameter. The description compensates fully by stating 'Optional tag to filter by', giving clear semantics that the schema lacks. This is exactly what parameter descriptions should provide.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List saved notes'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns only titles and tags, and explicitly points to get_note for reading a full note. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 gives explicit guidance to use get_note when a full note body is needed, and implies list is for overview. It does not mention search_notes as an alternative for searching, but the listing with optional tag filter is clear. This is strong but not fully exhaustive in covering all sibling alternatives.

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