list_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and describes returned fields, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it paginates, how many notes are returned, or any performance or scope constraints.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then the returned data. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It gives no behavioral context (read-only? pagination? scope?) and does not distinguish itself from search_notes, leaving gaps an agent may need filled.

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?

Parameter count is 0 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context by enumerating the fields each listed note will contain, which is useful even though no parameters exist.

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 verb 'Lists' and the resource 'Lazymark notes', and enumerates the returned fields (path, title, tags, task count). It does not explicitly differentiate from search_notes, but the enumerated output fields hint at the list vs. search distinction without naming the 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present. The listing behavior and returned field set imply a browsing use case, but an agent must infer that search_notes is the alternative for filtered lookups.

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