List notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds output fields, filter behavior, and recent-sort semantics. However, the claim that it lists 'every note' overstates behavior because the schema defaults limit to 100 and caps at 1000, which is a notable inaccuracy in what the agent should expect.

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 two tight sentences that front-load the browse-vs-search decision and then pack return fields, optional filters, and sort behavior with no filler. Every clause earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only list operation with no output schema, the description names the returned fields and the main filtering and sorting knobs, and the schema supplies limit bounds. It would be stronger if it acknowledged the default truncation of the result set, but nothing essential is missing for a basic browse call.

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 only 50%, and the description partially compensates by mentioning subfolder/tag filtering and explaining the 'recent' sort value. It adds little about the 'path' sort value or the meaning of 'limit,' which must be inferred from schema defaults rather than explicitly described.

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 an explicit action—browse rather than search—and names the resource, notes, plus the concrete result shape (path, title, tags, last change). It also distinguishes itself from search-like behavior, so an agent can separate it from siblings such as ragdown_recall without inspecting schemas.

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?

It clearly frames when to use this tool: browsing notes rather than searching for them, with optional folder and tag filtering. It does not explicitly name the search sibling as the alternative, so the when-not guidance is slightly implied, but the context is strong enough for correct routing.

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