list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no ordering, no pagination or result-count limits, no note on whether results are truncated for large vaults, and no indication of what fields a listed note contains. Read-only intent is only implied by the word 'list'.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficiently sized for a simple read tool, though it is arguably so terse that it omits useful detail rather than being a model of economical speech.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. The notable gap is the existence of the near-duplicate sibling list_notes_sorted, whose relationship to this tool the description never clarifies, leaving the agent to guess which listing endpoint to call.

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 both parameters (path, recursive) are fully documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The phrase 'vault or a specific folder' loosely mirrors the path parameter but adds no new syntax or semantics, and recursive is not addressed at all.

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 (list) and resource (notes) with the scope of the operation (whole vault or a specific folder). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling list_notes_sorted or search_notes, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as search_notes (filtered lookup) or list_notes_sorted (ordered listing). The only hint is the scope phrase 'vault or a specific folder', which is a purpose statement rather than usage guidance.

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