postmd_list_notes

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

Even though readOnlyHint already signals safety, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: result ordering, that each note has mine/manageable flags to trust rather than re-derive permissions, auth requirements, and password handling. It complements rather than contradicts the annotation.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: scope, ordering, auth, flag guidance, and password condition all earn their place. Critical constraints are 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 2-parameter, read-only list call the description is largely complete: it states scope, order, auth, password behavior, and the key returned flags. Without an output schema it could be stronger on the exact note payload structure, but the essential context for invoking correctly is present.

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 coverage is 50%, with password described in the schema and echoed in the description. The required docCode parameter has no schema description and is not clarified beyond 'on a document', leaving some ambiguity about what a valid code looks like.

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 opens with a specific verb and object — 'List notes and highlights on a document' — and precisely qualifies scope: 'your own plus every SHARED one, newest first.' This makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling postmd_list_my_notes without reading schemas.

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?

It gives clear context: the tool covers own plus shared notes, requires a documents:read API key, and needs a password for protected documents. It does not explicitly tell the agent to use postmd_list_my_notes when only own notes are wanted, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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