list_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the recursive flattening side effect (dirs=[]), default/pagination bounds (limit 200, max 500), and the shape of the response (total, truncated, next_offset).

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?

Three dense sentences ordered purpose → recursion behavior → pagination/return fields, with no filler. Every clause carries operational information and the most important scoping detail is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly shoulders the burden of explaining returns (total, truncated, next_offset, dirs on recursion), which is the critical piece for a paginated list tool. It omits result ordering/sort behavior, which matters for offset-based pagination, preventing a 5.

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 all five parameters ('Vault-root-relative dir', 'Max entries', 'Skip this many entries', 'Flat recursive listing'). The description largely restates these and adds only the interaction between recursive mode and dirs being emptied, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource combination ('List directories and notes under a vault path') with explicit scoping ('vault-root-relative, '' for root'), which clearly separates it from search_notes and list_vaults. It stops short of naming a sibling tool, so an agent must infer the browsing-vs-search distinction from the scope wording alone.

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?

Conditional usage is implied through 'Pass recursive=True to list all descendant notes flat (dirs=[])' and the pagination instructions, which tell the agent how to operate the tool. However, it never states when to prefer this over search_notes (e.g., exact browsing vs. query matching) or when not to use it, leaving tool selection to inference.

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