list_notes_tool

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions what it returns ('Vault structure and note paths') but omits key traits such as file type filtering (e.g., only .md), performance limitations, or sorting order. The defaults are given but not the behavioral implications.

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 extremely concise, using clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers its core function, but it omits explanation of the 'ctx' parameter and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools (e.g., list_notes_by_folder_dql_tool). No output schema is provided, but the return description is adequate for basic use.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds essential meaning for the directory and recursive parameters, including defaults. This goes beyond the schema's basic types. However, the 'ctx' parameter is completely undocumented, which lowers the score slightly.

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 resource (notes) with scope clarification ('in the vault or a specific directory'). It distinguishes from list_folders_tool but does not explicitly differentiate from list_notes_by_folder_dql_tool or search_notes_tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_notes_by_folder_dql_tool (for DQL-based listing) or search_notes_tool (for content search). Missing context about prerequisites or alternative tools.

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