list-notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the core behavior (lists all note file names) but does not specify details such as ordering, potential size limits, or return format. The read-only nature is implied by 'list' but not confirmed, which is a minor gap.

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 two short sentences, with the primary meaning in the first and useful alias information in the second. There is no waste; every token provides value.

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, the description covers the essential purpose. It does not explicitly state the return type (e.g., array of strings) or any edge-case behavior, but these are highly inferable from the name. Slightly more explicit return info would make it fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. Per the baseline rule, the description need not add parameter details. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is appropriate here.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('all note file names'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools that operate on individual notes. Even without the title, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage context (to enumerate note file names) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or directly reference sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer based on the name.

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