list_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The 'list' verb and 'paths' output convey a read-only, lightweight behavior, which is useful context. But it does not disclose limit-based pagination, the effect of with_frontmatter, recursion behavior, or path format.

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?

A single, tight sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place; the brevity costs are accounted for in other dimensions.

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 no output schema and no annotations, this description is too thin. It omits what limit does, what with_frontmatter changes, the path format, and any relationship to sibling tools, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 0%, and the description only hints at the folder parameter via 'optionally restricted to one folder.' The limit and with_frontmatter parameters are entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('list') and resource ('note paths'), so the core operation is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like find_notes or search_notes, which also retrieve note-related data.

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 given about when to use list_notes versus any of the 26 sibling tools. An agent cannot determine whether to reach for this, search_notes, or recent_notes, and there are no exclusions or alternative references.

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