list_draft_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it is read-only, does not mutate data, and specifies error behaviors (missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, rate limits). This adds context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 multi-sentence but each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage distinction, behavioral notes, and parameter guidance. It is structured and not overly verbose, though slightly long for only two parameters.

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 simple schema with full parameter descriptions and annotations covering safety, the description fully addresses purpose, usage, error handling, and parameter formatting. It does not specify return format, but that is acceptable for a list operation.

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 covers both parameters fully with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds guidance on formatting project_id as numeric ID or URL-encoded path and mentions using required identifiers and pagination fields, which is slightly redundant but offers a little extra clarity.

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 'List draft notes for a merge request' with a clear verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from get_draft_note by advising to choose the get tool when a single resource is known, which effectively differentiates it from a key sibling.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this for a collection of resources; choose the corresponding get tool when you already know the single resource to inspect.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, plus an alternative tool.

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