Three tools with clear verb-noun naming (list_notes, add_note, delete_note) and descriptions stating scope requirements. However, descriptions are minimal (20-50 chars) and lack actionable context for LLM selection. Input schemas present but sparse: list_notes has empty object (no params), add_note has two string params with descriptions, delete_note has one string param. No output schemas documented. Missing error handling guidance, pagination support, and idempotency hints for write operations. Scope enforcement is implemented server-side via toolscope middleware, which is good security practice, but not surfaced in tool definitions.

• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. Example for list_notes: 'Retrieve all notes accessible with your current token. Returns an array of note objects with id, title, text, and created_at. Requires notes:read scope. Call this first to discover available notes before operating on specific ones.'
• Document output schemas for all three tools. E.g., list_notes returns {notes: [{id: string, title: string, text: string, created_at: ISO8601}], total: number}. add_note returns {id: string, title: string, text: string, created_at: ISO8601}.
• Add pagination to list_notes: accept optional limit (1-100, default 20) and offset (default 0) parameters. Return total count so LLMs know if more results exist.
• Add error handling guidance in descriptions. E.g., delete_note: 'Returns error if note ID not found. Verify the ID exists by calling list_notes first if unsure.'
• Expose scope requirements via tool annotations (readOnlyHint for list_notes, destructiveHint for delete_note) so LLMs and clients can reason about permissions without parsing descriptions.

Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.

• Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry