List Notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive hint. The description adds behavioral context: returns paths (not full content), supports folder scoping, pagination, and the ability to project frontmatter fields via the properties parameter. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a usage guideline, then an explanation of a key parameter. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, all documented in schema, and no output schema. The description explains what is returned (paths and optionally frontmatter fields) and mentions pagination. This is adequate for a read-only list operation, though it could be more explicit about the return format (array, structure).

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of the properties parameter: 'to project specific frontmatter fields... without reading every note individually.' It also contextualizes limit/offset as pagination. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'List note paths' with optional folder scoping and pagination. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_notes by advising 'Use this instead of an empty full-text search when enumerating files.' The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 a clear when-to-use: 'Use this instead of an empty full-text search when enumerating files.' This helps differentiate from search_notes. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or mention other alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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