list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation with no destructive intent, but it does not mention output format, ordering, or whether full content or only metadata is returned. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates this gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's basic purpose, and there is no filler or repeated information from the schema.

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 parameterless listing tool, the description is largely sufficient: it states the object, scope, and format. It could additionally clarify how it differs from read_note and search_notes, but given the simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the missing guidance is a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters, so the description needs to explain none. The schema coverage is effectively 100%, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information. Baseline 4 is appropriate given the absence of parameters.

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 a clear verb ('Liste') and a specific resource ('notes Markdown disponibles'), and indicates the scope ('l'ensemble'). It is distinguishable from siblings read_note and search_notes by its all-notes scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies it is for retrieving all notes, but it never mentions alternatives like read_note for a single note or search_notes for filtered results, so an agent must infer the appropriate choice.

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