list_notebooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior — that folder paths are resolved from archive.json 'when present' (implying some notebooks lack them) and that scanning defaults to configured roots such as iCloud Drive/Downloads backups and the MCP output folder. It does not state recursion behavior, read-only/disk-access implications, or expected cost of scanning large roots.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, then parameter notes. Two sentences earn their place, but the parenthetical default-roots example is long-winded and the parameter glosses are packed into one dense paragraph rather than cleanly separated.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and the tool only has two optional params with defaults. Still, an agent must guess whether subfolders are recursed, whether results are sorted, and whether 'root' composes with the configured roots or replaces them — gaps that matter for a filesystem-listing tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: 'root' is defined as the folder to scan with a stated default, and 'query' is defined as a case-insensitive filter over title AND path. Remaining ambiguity is format-level (is root a single path? are multiple roots accepted?) rather than conceptual.

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 first line gives a specific verb+resource: 'List .noteful notebooks', plus the useful detail that folder paths come from archive.json when present. It doesn't name the sibling it is not (library_tree, live_library, notebook_info), so the differentiation from adjacent notebook-listing tools is left to inference.

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 what the two optional parameters do and what happens when omitted (defaults to configured roots), which implies the basic usage pattern. But it never states when to pick this tool over siblings like library_tree or live_library, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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