List Document Notes

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Return notes' does not disclose any additional traits such as ordering, pagination, or error behavior. It is safe but not transparent about anything not covered by annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant words. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it appropriately concise.

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 low-complexity read operation with a single required parameter, strong safety annotations, and an output schema (present but not shown), the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit mention of possible empty results or ordering, but these are minor given the output schema likely covers the return shape.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented document_id parameter. It does so minimally by indicating that notes are 'attached to a document', implying document_id identifies that document. This adds some meaning beyond a bare integer, but it does not elaborate on constraints, format, or relationships with other parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Return') on a specific resource ('notes attached to a document'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_document, add_document_note, and delete_document_note. The purpose is unambiguous and matches the title.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that adding or deleting notes should use add_document_note or delete_document_note, nor does it clarify when this tool is preferable over get_document or search_documents. Usage is only implied by the name.

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