lipi_list_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by stating the two possible return shapes (NoteMeta[] and NoteTree[]) and including the field list for the flat result. The word 'List' plus the return-type description clearly signals a non-mutating read operation, though it does not mention auth requirements or any potential side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and return type, the second explains the optional mode. Every token earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it names the result types, lists the fields for the flat list, and explains the tree mode's purpose. The only minor gap is the lack of fields for NoteTree[], but the sidebar use case gives enough context for an agent to proceed.

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 already covers the single boolean parameter with a description ('If true, return directory tree instead of flat list'), giving a high baseline. The description adds further meaning by naming the exact return type NoteTree[] and mentioning the intended use case (sidebar), which goes beyond the schema's terse parameter note.

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 opens with a specific, action-oriented statement: "List all notes in the Lipi vault." It clearly names the resource (notes), the operation (list), and the scope (all), and further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lipi_search, lipi_read_note, and lipi_create_note by describing a full listing plus an optional directory-tree variant.

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 concrete usage context for the optional parameter: "Use tree=true to get a directory tree NoteTree[] for the sidebar." This implies when the tool should be used (flat listing vs. sidebar tree) but does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over lipi_search or lipi_read_note. Usage guidance is present but relies on inference.

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