list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it always returns specific fields (name, user, id, folder), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention what happens with no items, pagination, ordering, or rate limits. Reasonable for a read/list tool but the 'always returning' detail is the main behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core action. No waste, but the 'always returning fields' list is informative and earned. Slightly could have mentioned sibling alternatives but overall tight.

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 filtered-list tool with 2 optional parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema needed urgency for return value explanations. The description covers the core behavior, filter capability, and guarantees on returned fields. Adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds the always-returned-fields context but doesn't add format/behavior detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema fully documents the two parameters.

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?

Description states the verb (lists) and resource (items from the vault), plus the always-returned fields (name, user, id, folder). This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like get and search tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. It's clear but not exceptional.

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 mentions filtering by search term but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrasts with alternatives like get, code, or delete. The siblings include get and status, but the description doesn't clarify when list is appropriate versus those. Usage context is implied at best.

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