list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' strongly implies a non-mutating read operation, and the description adds useful root/subdirectory behavior, but it does not explicitly state whether the listing is read-only, recursive, or sorted.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and adds the parameter usage immediately. Every word earns its place with no filler or 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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential invocation detail (directory or root). It could add a note about whether the listing is restricted to immediate children, but nothing critical is missing.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the single parameter: 'Pass a subdirectory path, or leave empty for the vault root.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'directory' property and covers the default behavior.

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-resource pair ('List files and folders') and clarifies the scope by referencing the vault root and subdirectory paths. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note, write_note, and delete_note, though it does not explicitly mention 'notes' in the first clause.

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 when to use the tool: whenever you need a directory listing, with a subdirectory path or the root. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like search_notes or read_note, so the guidance is present but only implicit.

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