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. It does disclose that this is a lightweight listing returning only metadata fields (implying no note bodies), but says nothing about permissions, pagination beyond the schema default, or whether results are ordered or truncated. Partial disclosure only.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then how to filter. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully specified, and the description still summarizes them. For a simple zero-required-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the 'limit' behavior and result ordering are left to inference.

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%, so the description must compensate. It covers two of three parameters ('tag', 'folder prefix'), and 'prefix' adds matching semantics beyond the schema, which is genuinely useful. However, the 'limit' parameter is left unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a specific action and resource ('inventory of notes') and enumerates the fields returned (file_path, title, type, status, tags), which tells an agent this is a metadata-only listing rather than a content read. It stops short of naming a sibling such as read_note or semantic_search explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 word 'cheap' implicitly signals when to prefer this over heavier tools like semantic_search or read_note, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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