list_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering by note_type and tag, and a limit with default/max values, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens when no filters are applied. The description adds some operational context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bullet-point list of parameters with concise explanations, and ends with return format information. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted 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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, filtering functionality) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is reasonably complete. It covers all parameters and mentions the return format (list of dictionaries without body content). However, it lacks behavioral context that would be important for a filtering/list tool with no annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so effectively. It explains all three parameters: note_type (with allowed values: 会议记录, 想法, 参考, 速记), tag (exact match single tag name), and limit (default 20, max 100). This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover parameter interactions or edge cases.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '列出笔记库中的笔记' (List notes in the note library). It specifies the resource (notes) and verb (list), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'get_note'. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_notes' (which might offer more flexible filtering) or 'get_note' (for retrieving a single note with full content). There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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