list_note_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'list' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the description specifies that it enumerates distinct sources. For a simple query tool, this adequately conveys the behavioral profile, though it does not go into detail about limitations (e.g., sorting, limits) — which are not critical here.

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 two sentences: purpose first, then parameter details. It is front-loaded, has zero redundancy, and every word earns its place. Structure is well-organized with a clear separation of purpose and argument explanation.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema (so return format is covered), and the only parameter is fully explained. The description provides all necessary information for correct invocation. While it doesn't contrast with the sibling, that is a usage-guidelines gap rather than a completeness gap for this simple tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. It explains that class_filter is optional, restricts to 'class-xi' or 'class-xii', and empty means both. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type and default, and even gives allowed values.

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 a specific verb ('list') and resource ('all distinct source files currently indexed in the notes database'), which is precise and clearly differentiates from the sibling search_notes, which would search within notes rather than enumerate sources. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 does not explicitly contrast this tool with search_notes or state when to use it versus the alternative. The purpose implies a listing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving it to the agent to infer from context.

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