list_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Newest first,' which is a genuinely useful ordering behavior not present in structured fields. It still omits pagination, result limits, and whether all history is returned, leaving gaps beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Two terse clauses with no filler, and the ordering note ('Newest first') is placed at the end where it reads as an operational detail. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, which slightly undercuts polish but wastes no space.

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-value structure needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. For a simple no-param list tool this is nearly complete, but the description omits any mention of result volume, pagination, or time bounding, which an agent may need before invoking.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool has a baseline of 4; the description does not degrade this.

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 identifies the resource (timeline annotations) and clarifies exactly what a note contains: launches, deploys, campaigns logged by the founder or an agent. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_metrics or list_goals. However, the verb is implicit – it never states it 'lists' or 'returns' notes, relying on the tool name to supply that.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_investigation or ask. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals are given. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and content type.

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