Listar notas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Solo lectura' (read-only), notes recursive behavior, and explains that hidden folders like .obsidian are ignored. This discloses key safety and operational traits, though it could additionally mention return format or performance considerations.

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 three concise sentences with essential information front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: purpose, optional parameter behavior, and key behavioral notes (ignores hidden folders, read-only). 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter context, read-only safety, and hidden-folder handling. The return value (list of notes) is implicit in the verb 'Lista', so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'folder' is already well-documented in the schema. The description restates the subfolder restriction ('restringe a una subcarpeta relativa') without adding new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista'), specifies the resource (notas .md de la boveda de Obsidian), and adds scope details ('recursivamente', optional subfolder). It clearly distinguishes from siblings, which read or search, by focusing on listing.

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool (recursive listing, optional subfolder, ignores hidden folders) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like search_vault. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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