postmd_list_my_notes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it requires documents:read, filters to the member's own notes, and returns docCode/documentTitle alongside each note. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core behavior and includes only necessary constraints and output details. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundancy or vague filler.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, the ownership filter, the required permission, and the accompanying output fields. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description still adds value by explaining what the response conceptually contains, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('List') and a specific resource ('every note the key's member wrote, across all documents'), and it names the output fields (docCode, documentTitle). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling postmd_list_notes by adding the ownership scope ('the key's member wrote').

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 a clear use context — listing notes authored by the authenticated key's member — and states the required permission (documents:read). It doesn't explicitly name when to use postmd_list_notes instead, but the scope distinction is strong enough to guide an agent.

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