list_notes

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any side effects. Since it is a listing operation, it is likely safe, but the description does not explicitly disclose this, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It conveys the core functionality and important usage caveats without unnecessary fluff, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description provides enough context for correct usage, including the file type limitations and the pointer to search_vault for PDF/Canvas. It lacks details about return format or default pagination, but those are not critical for basic understanding given the schema.

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 schema covers all four parameters (limit, folder, offset, extension) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool lists vault notes with filters and pagination. It is specific about the resource and action, and differentiates from search-related tools by implying a listing operation. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool in the purpose statement, so a small gap remains.

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 gives explicit guidance on file type limitations: only .md can be read via read_note, and for PDF/Canvas files one should use search_vault. This effectively tells the user when not to use this tool and points to an alternative, which is strong usage guidance.

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