list_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all notes' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify important behavioral aspects like whether results are paginated, sorted, or limited; what format they return; or whether the optional folder parameter affects performance. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, plus the existence of many similar sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. A list operation needs more context about what 'list' means practically - does it return metadata, full content, paths only? How does it handle large vaults? Without this information, an agent cannot reliably use this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'folder' clearly documented as 'Folder path within the vault (optional)'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal parameter documentation.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all notes in the Obsidian vault'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list/search tools like 'list_tags', 'list_templates', or 'search_vault', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'search_vault', 'search_by_tags', 'read_multiple_notes', and 'find_similar_notes', there's no indication of when this broad listing tool is preferable to more targeted search or read operations.

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