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 of behavioral disclosure. It states a read-like list operation but doesn't clarify whether the listing is recursive, sorted, paginated, or subject to permissions, nor does it describe the return shape even though an output schema exists (which mitigates somewhat).

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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though it could add a clause about ordering or recursion without becoming bloated.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, with no annotations and no mention of ordering, filtering, or relationship to sibling read/save tools, it leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is fine given there are none to document; the scope is only implied by the text and output 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (.txt files in the notes directory), which is clear enough for an agent to understand. Siblings save_note, append_note, and read_note_by_filename are distinct operations, but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from any of them beyond what the verb implies.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent must infer that it should call this before read_note_by_filename to discover filenames, but the description provides no such routing or prerequisite context.

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