list_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses indexing lag, sorting by modification time, tag AND logic, and strict frontmatter matching. It lacks details on pagination or behavior for missing folders.

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, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Concise yet informative.

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 4 optional parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects and parameter usage. It does not explain return values (likely covered by output schema) or error cases, but overall is 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 adds meaning for all 4 parameters: folder path format, limit default, tags as optional list with example, frontmatter as optional dict with example. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 it lists notes in a vault folder sorted by most recently modified. It uniquely identifies its scope (folder-based listing with index lag) from sibling tools like keyword_search, semantic_search, and get_recent.

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 explains that results come from an index with up to 5-minute lag, informing when to use this tool vs. direct read tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like find_related or keyword_search, or state when not to use it.

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