list_notes

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: results are previews rather than full notes, ordering is newest-update-first, and include_deleted reveals a soft-delete model that annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded single-sentence purpose followed by a compact per-argument block; no filler. The Args block is slightly mechanical but every line adds parameter meaning the schema lacks.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still notes the one-line preview shape. With no required parameters, a 0% schema coverage list fully compensated, and paging covered, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must carry all five parameters, and it largely does: limit range 1-100 with default 20, offset as a paging skip count, the full theme color set, is_open as saved open/closed state, and include_deleted for soft-deleted notes. Only the accepted theme spelling/casing and offset interaction with limit are left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list sticky notes) and adds distinguishing behavior: a one-line preview and 'newest updates first' ordering. It does not explicitly name siblings search_notes/get_note, so an agent must infer the difference from 'preview' vs. full retrieval.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter list (theme, is_open, include_deleted) and by the 'one-line preview' framing that suggests lightweight listing versus full note retrieval. However, it never states when to use this instead of search_notes or get_note, and gives no exclusions.

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