list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does add real value: it discloses the return shape ('paths and mtimes only, no bodies') and a filtering rule (excludes dotfiles/dotdirs). It says nothing about ordering, limits, or pagination, so it's useful but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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, zero waste, front-loading the operation and immediately qualifying the return contents and the exclusion rule.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is arguably redundant, yet 'since' is left wholly undescribed in both schema and description. Adequate for a simple read-only listing but with a real gap in filter semantics.

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 must compensate, but it only implicitly covers 'glob' and never explains 'since' (presumably an mtime cutoff) despite it being a nullable number with a default of null. Half the parameters remain uninterpretable from the description alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List notes') plus the matching mechanism ('glob pattern'), which is enough to distinguish it from read_note/write_note/move_note. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative such as search_vault, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of overlapping siblings (search_vault could plausibly return notes too), and no indication of when the 'since' filter should be used. The glob mention implies usage but says nothing about context or alternatives.

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