List fields of a note type

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: the names are returned in order, and the first field has a non-empty constraint that matters for downstream note creation. It does not discuss error behavior for an invalid model name, which the openWorldHint=false makes worth mentioning.

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 short sentences: the return value and example come first, then the downstream constraint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully compensates by describing the return shape and ordering plus an example. For a one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented, including the pointer to model_names. The description only refers to "the given model" without adding format or exactness guidance, so it matches the baseline rather than extending it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Returns the field names of the given model") and includes a concrete output example ["Front", "Back"], which implicitly distinguishes it from model_names and model_fields_on_templates. An agent can tell what it gets without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to consume the result: use these exact names as keys of `fields` in add_note/add_notes, and that the first field must not be empty. It does not state when to prefer model_fields_on_templates instead, so sibling routing is only partially covered.

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