list_decks_and_notes

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not clarify behavioral traits such as read-only nature, memory usage, or any side effects. For a listing tool, it likely is non-destructive, but this is not stated.

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 sentence, concise but ambiguous due to the 'excluding specified patterns' detail. It front-loads the purpose but includes unnecessary confusion.

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?

Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basics. However, the misleading mention of exclusion patterns leaves gaps in understanding the tool's exact behavior and limits completeness.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description should not imply parameters. However, the phrase 'excluding specified patterns' suggests filtering capability that contradicts the schema, reducing clarity.

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 'Get all decks (excluding specified patterns) and note types with their fields,' which clearly identifies the resources. However, the mention of 'excluding specified patterns' implies a parameter that does not exist in the input schema, causing ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_notes or add_note. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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