list_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list' without mentioning pagination (though cursor appears in schema), potential performance, or authorization needs. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 that directly states the tool's action. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be more structured with additional context. However, for a simple tool, it wastes no words.

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 no output schema, the description should mention what is returned (e.g., list of note objects). It does not explain the result format or behavior with pagination. The nested input object adds complexity that is not clarified. Annotations are missing, leaving the description incomplete for reliable use.

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 description does not mention parameters, but the input schema provides descriptions for all four nested parameters (ownerId, parentNoteId, orderBy, cursor). Since schema coverage is effectively complete, the baseline is 3. No additional value added by the description beyond what the schema already offers.

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 it lists notes with optional filtering, which is clear but vague. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'get_note_children', and lacks specificity about the scope of the list (e.g., all notes or user-specific). The purpose is not a tautology but remains ambiguous in context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include 'search_notes', 'get_note', and 'list_custom_content', but the description provides no criteria for choosing this tool. Agents must infer usage from the name alone.

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