list_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires a 'registered vault' and filters by directory, and clarifies that it lists only 'Markdown notes' rather than all files. This goes beyond the structured annotations and aligns with them; no contradiction.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it maximally concise while still covering all essential aspects.

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 is simple with no output schema, but the description gives enough to understand its scope: vault prerequisite, optional directory, and Markdown notes. It does not specify return format (e.g., paths vs. names), sorting, or recursion, which might matter, but for a listing operation the description is largely sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does map both parameters: 'vault' corresponds to the registered vault, and 'directory' is the optional subdirectory filter. However, it does not explain path formats, whether the directory is exact or prefix, or traversal behavior, so the semantics are only partially clarified.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'Markdown notes in a registered vault' and an optional directory filter, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tags, list_backlinks, and list_vaults. It unambiguously states what the tool returns.

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 clear context by specifying it operates on 'a registered vault' and optionally 'below a directory', making it obvious when to use this over tools like search_notes or read_note. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest tier.

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