notes.list_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Metadata-first' suggests the default response is metadata without body content, which is a useful behavioral hint. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, side effects, or performance characteristics, so transparency is partial.

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 highly concise at only 4 words, front-loading the key point. Every word serves a purpose: 'List notes' states the action, and 'metadata-first' conveys behavioral nuance. While brief, it avoids verbosity and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 existence of an output schema and high parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It distinguishes list_notes from get_note but lacks details on filtering, pagination, or the scope of results. For a tool with 8 parameters and several sibling tools, more context would enhance 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description 'List notes (metadata-first)' does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it reinforces the intent but does not clarify parameter usage or provide additional context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 'List notes (metadata-first)' clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (notes). The term 'metadata-first' hints at a default behavior of returning metadata without content, which helps distinguish from tools like notes.get_note that likely return full content. However, it could be more explicit about what 'metadata-first' entails.

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 such as notes.get_note for individual notes or notes.list_folders for folders. There are no details on prerequisites, exclusions, or use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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