list_notes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the listing action. It does not mention pagination, ordering, size limits, read-only safety, or scope (vault-wide vs workspace), all relevant for a tool claiming to list 'toutes' notes.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical adds meaningful scope without redundancy, making it as concise as the tool's simplicity allows.

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?

Given the empty input schema and presence of an output schema, the basic call contract is covered. However, the description does not clarify what 'toutes les notes' means operationally, such as whether the result is paginated or scoped to a vault, and no usage guidance compensates for the missing behavioral context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. The baseline for this dimension is appropriately high, and the description correctly implies that no arguments are required.

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 clear action ('Liste') and resource ('toutes les notes'), with the parenthetical '(metadonnees)' clarifying that it returns metadata rather than note content. This distinguishes it from content-reading siblings like read_note, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The word 'metadonnees' implies the tool is for metadata rather than content, but with dozens of sibling tools an agent is left to infer when list_notes should be selected over read_note, search_text, or list_folders.

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