list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (vault/relative/path.md), compatibility with search_notes and read_note, and the recursive behavior with a clear flag explanation. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of the tool's output and scoping behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output format/interoperability, and recursion control. Very efficient and well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (3 params, return format) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output format, chaining, and a specific parameter behavior. No significant gaps remain.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains folder scoping ('optionally scoped to a subfolder') and the recursive parameter ('Set recursive=False to list only the immediate folder'). The vault parameter is not explicitly described but is self-evident from the tool name and schema.

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 tool lists note paths within a vault, with an optional subfolder scope. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note (which reads content) and delete_note (which deletes).

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 provides clear context by explaining the output format matches search_notes and can be passed to read_note, which implies when to use it (enumeration) and how to chain it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for file content), but the purpose is unambiguous.

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