list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the schema by revealing that namespaces are not enumerable and that `p-` prefixed keys are excluded. This is meaningful, though it stops short of describing return formatting or error behavior for invalid namespaces.

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 concise sentences, with the primary verb-object statement front-loaded. The second sentence adds a necessary behavioral constraint. No filler or redundant information, earning the highest score.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the core purpose and some filtering behavior. However, it lacks guidance on how namespaces are structured, how they relate to sibling tools like read_note or write_note, and what the result of listing looks like. This is adequate but leaves identifiable gaps.

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 has only one parameter (`namespace`), but the description provides zero additional meaning about what constitutes a valid namespace or how it relates to the tool's operation. It merely reuses the term 'namespace' from the schema without elaborating on its format, allowed values, or relationship to other tools. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 starts with a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'keys in a note namespace', immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_note (which reads content) and list_rooms (which lists rooms). The additional constraint about namespaces and `p-` keys further clarifies its scope.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to enumerate the keys within a namespace. It sets expectations by stating what cannot be listed (namespaces themselves, keys starting with `p-`), providing context without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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