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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the root-folder behavior with an empty string, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether subfolders are included recursively or other behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the key edge case. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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 simple read-only list operation, the description plus rich annotations and a fully documented schema cover what an agent needs. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's responsibility, and the vault_id nuance is already fully explained in the input schema.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including the vault_id requirement and the empty-string root convention. The description reinforces the root behavior but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('List all notes') and the resource ('in a specific folder'), with a useful special case for the vault root. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_notes or list_folders, but the folder-scoped focus is evident.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need notes contained in a folder, or all vault-root notes when passing an empty string. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over get_notes, search_notes, or list_folders, and no exclusions are stated.

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