List Notes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns paths only (not content/metadata) and explains error behavior: nonexistent folder or no matches returns empty array, not an error. No contradiction.

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 well-structured with sections, examples, and clear parameter details. However, it is slightly verbose; some sentences could be condensed without losing meaning. Nevertheless, every sentence adds 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states the return format (JSON array of vault-relative path strings). It covers error cases and parameter interactions. For a listing tool, this is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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 is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples, explains the combination of folder and glob, clarifies that folder scopes to prefix including subfolders, and describes glob syntax (supports * and **). This goes well beyond the schema 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 clearly states it lists .md file paths in the vault, with optional filtering by folder and/or glob pattern. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vault_search_by_folder and vault_search by specifying what it returns (paths only) and when to use alternatives.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use (browsing by filename, finding by pattern) and when-not-to-use (prefer other tools for metadata or content). It names specific alternative tools and their use cases, giving clear guidance.

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