list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses index lag, sorting order, tag AND-matching, and strict frontmatter type matching. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error behavior, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'List'.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds a critical caveat about index lag, then lists parameters in a clean Args block. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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 tool has four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, filter semantics, and the index-lag caveat. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying whether subfolders are included recursively, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains folder paths with examples and root behavior, limit defaults, tag ALL-matching semantics, and strict frontmatter type matching—all beyond the bare schema.

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 tool lists notes in a vault folder sorted by modification time, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_recent or list_files, so it misses the highest bar for sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage by explaining folder scoping and filter semantics, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as keyword_search, semantic_search, or get_recent. There are no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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