get_notes_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses that date filtering is 'not yet implemented', that it 'currently returns all notes', and that the output is a 'formatted list of notes with metadata'. This gives important behavioral expectations beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with leading purpose, Args, Returns, and Note sections. Every line adds value, especially the note about unimplemented parameters, without redundancy.

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 an output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it lists, current behavior, and parameter status. It doesn't mention sorting or folder details, but these are not critical given the sibling context.

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%, and the description compensates by providing the ISO format for start_date and end_date and explicitly noting they are 'not yet implemented'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema type and default.

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 'Get list of notes from Claude Diary folder', specifying a concrete action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_note (single note) and create_note, making the list-scope explicit.

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 implies usage for listing notes but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools. It doesn't state 'use this when you need all notes, use get_note for one note', leaving this to inference from sibling names.

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