list_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and specifying the output fields (titles and paths) adds useful context. It does not mention possible limitations or sort order, but for a simple zero-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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 sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'List' and concisely states the resource and output details. Every word earns its place.

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 simple listing tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what is returned (titles and workspace-relative paths), and with an output schema present, no further detail on return values is needed. The tool's simplicity means nothing is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description need not explain parameters, and per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for tools with no 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 uses the specific verb 'list' with the resource 'notes' and specifies the output scope as 'titles and workspace-relative Markdown paths.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_note (which reads content), search_notes (which searches), and create_note/append_to_note (which modify).

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 implies usage by stating the tool enumerates note titles and paths, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus the alternatives. There are no exclusions or specific context given, so it stays at an implied level.

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