notes_list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that body output is optional and that scoping can be applied, but it doesn't mention default limit behavior, pagination, sorting, return format, or whether it returns metadata only by default. This is a meaningful gap for a listing tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is commendable, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It earns a middle score: concise but at the cost of necessary detail.

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 tool with 6 optional parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is insufficient. The agent has no guidance on default behavior, parameter semantics, return structure, or how this tool differs from the recent-notes sibling. A complete description for a tool this complex would need substantially more.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely references 'scoping by account/folder' and 'full body output'. It does not explain the relationship between account_id vs account_name, folder_id vs folder_name, limit defaults, or include_body meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 uses a clear verb ('List') and resource ('notes'), and adds meaningful scoping detail: optional filter by account/folder and optional full body output. It distinguishes itself from list_accounts and list_folders, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with notes_get_recent_notes.

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 alternatives like notes_get_recent_notes or how the optional scoping relates to list_accounts/list_folders. The 'optional' wording implies filtering use cases, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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