List notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "List" correctly implies a non-mutating read, and "configured notes directory" tells the agent the scope is server-side config rather than a caller-supplied path. It says nothing about recursion into subdirectories, whether file paths or only names are returned, or ordering, which are the behaviors an agent would want before calling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope qualifier follows immediately after the action, so the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what a "note file" listing actually contains (names vs. full paths, metadata) and whether the listing is recursive. For a trivial zero-param read tool this is a modest gap, but it is a 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly makes clear the directory is fixed by configuration, which explains why no path parameter exists.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List note files") plus the scope ("in the configured notes directory"), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_notes or read_note, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the verb "List" suggests enumeration of all notes rather than targeted retrieval via search_notes or read_note. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over its siblings or any precondition to check.

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