List Notebooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List all ... with their ids' implies a safe, complete read with no filtering or mutation, which is adequate for a zero-parameter listing tool, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the downstream-use clause tacked on efficiently. Nothing is wasted.

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 trivial zero-param read tool with an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description tells the agent enough to call it correctly. It stops short of noting ordering or that all notebooks are returned unfiltered, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly notes that no filter argument exists by saying '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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Joplin notebooks), and disambiguates the domain term by equating notebooks with folders. It also clarifies what is returned (ids), which separates it from create_notebook and list_notes_in_notebook.

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 phrase 'for use with create_note' signals the intended workflow and why an agent would call this first. However, it gives no explicit exclusion (e.g. when to prefer list_notes_in_notebook or list_tags instead).

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