Folder Contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating this is a safe read operation with limited scope. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions listing contents but doesn't describe return format, pagination, error conditions, or performance characteristics. With annotations covering safety and scope, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and has perfect conciseness for this level of tool complexity.

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 that this tool has annotations covering safety/scope and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool with 3 parameters (one required) and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more parameter context and usage guidance to be truly complete.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'folder path' which maps to the 'path' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'recursive' or 'limit' parameters. It adds some value by clarifying what 'path' represents, but doesn't compensate for the complete lack of documentation on the other two parameters.

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 verb ('List') and resources ('notes and subfolders') with the scope ('for a folder path'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'notes.list' or 'notes.list_folders' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'notes.list' or 'notes.list_folders'. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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