list_notes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (listing files and folders) but does not disclose whether the listing is recursive, whether hidden files are included, or whether only names are returned. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicit.

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?

A single 12-word sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential calling context: what is listed and where. It lacks usage guidance versus siblings, but that gap is already captured under usage_guidelines. The optional subpath and root default are communicated.

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 only parameter, path, is explained as an optional subpath within the brain directory, adding meaning beyond the schema which only provides a title and default null. However, it does not specify the path format or whether null explicitly means the root.

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 ('List') and resource ('files and folders in the brain directory'), with an optional subpath scoping that clearly distinguishes it from search_notes and read_note. An agent can immediately identify this as the directory-listing tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus search_notes or read_note. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer that listing is different from searching or reading without explicit routing.

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