list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Lists' implies a safe read operation and 'stored in server memory' provides context, but the description does not disclose return format, ordering, emptiness behavior, or potential errors. It is minimally transparent but lacks richer behavioral detail.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, scope, and storage location efficiently, earning every word.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly: the agent knows what will be listed and where the data lives. However, the absence of an output schema and any mention of return shape or edge cases leaves minor ambiguity about what a caller should expect.

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 rooftrivial coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add beyond the already-complete schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Lists'), a clear resource ('all available notes'), and a location ('server memory'). It is immediately distinct from siblings like add_note and unrelated tools like calculate or fetch_weather.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to call when the agent needs to see all stored notes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the zero-parameter scope and contrast with add_note make the usage context clear.

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