List notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys a read-only enumeration action and the two scope choices, but it does not mention path format, sorting, recursion, or how project inference from the working directory behaves at runtime. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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: 'List note paths' appears immediately, and the scope alternatives are stated compactly. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description plus the fully-documented schema is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks an explicit contrast with search_notes but otherwise covers the essential action and scoping 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?

Schema coverage for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'project' vs 'vault' scope semantic and the project-folder notion, but it adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already documents. It does not explain path formats or inference fallbacks beyond the schema description.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('note paths'), and introduces a meaningful scope distinction between the project folder and the whole vault. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_notes, which could also return note paths when filtering by content.

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 no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_notes, and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions. While the scoping options are clear, the agent is left to infer when listing is the appropriate operation.

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