list_notes

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint=true: discloses the 500-item cap and that it reports how many more exist beyond the cap, explains that private folders are surfaced without contents (marked "ask first"), and constrains private=true to an explicit in-chat user request. These are concrete behavioral traits an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then usage routing, then privacy caveat. Dense but every clause carries meaning; slightly long with overlapping statements about private folders but no dead weight.

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?

With an output schema present and readOnly/openWorld annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: cap/truncation reporting, privacy handling, and path-resolution role for sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the private-gating semantics and the 'inside' scoping, but largely restates what the schema descriptions already say, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (list), the exact resources (notes, files, subfolders), the scoping (by path, optionally one subfolder) and the cap (up to 500). This clearly distinguishes it from search_notes and recent_changes named in the same breath.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (browsing, or resolving exact paths needed by read_file_text, links_to, move_note and edit tools) and names the alternative tools with their selecting conditions (search_notes for content, recent_changes for recency). Private-folder guidance adds a clear when-to-use/when-not rule.

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