list_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that the tool lists files and folders, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose details such as whether it returns only names, includes metadata, or if there are any limits or side effects. The description is minimally transparent.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant or unnecessary text.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It specifies the resource and parameter behavior. However, it could benefit from mentioning the output format (e.g., names only, flat vs recursive) to further aid agent understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'directory' parameter. The description adds context by mentioning 'vault or a specific directory' and 'empty = root', which aligns with the schema description. No additional semantical value beyond what the schema provides.

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 the verb 'Lista' (lists) and specifies the resource as 'arquivos e pastas do vault ou de um diretório específico' (files and folders from the vault or a specific directory). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note (which reads content) and create_note (which creates notes). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 description implies usage when listing vault contents or a specific directory, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like search_notes or find_note_by_name. No exclusion criteria or use cases are stated.

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