List all labels with counts, or supply a label to list the notes that reference it.
Sem argumento: lista todas as tags com contagem. Com tag: lista as notas que a usam.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| limite | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dual-mode behavior, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination or how `limite` affects results.
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 short clauses, front-loaded by mode, with no redundant wording. 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool whose primary mode is listing notes, leaving `limite` undocumented means an agent cannot infer result-size behavior from the description.
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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the `tag` parameter's behavior (list notes that use it) but completely omits `limite`, which defaults to 50 and presumably caps results.
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 states a specific verb (listar) and resource (tags/notas) and distinguishes two modes based on the presence of the `tag` argument. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like buscar, filtrar, or recentes.
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 explicitly says when to use the no-argument form (list all tags with counts) versus when to supply a tag (list notes using that tag). There is no guidance on exclusions or alternative sibling tools, but the core usage condition is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.