list_notes_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burdenaging. It clearly states the result container (data.items) and its two shapes: a list of plain paths or a list of objects with path, title, tags, status, created, and mtime when include_meta=True. This goes beyond the schema by describing the actual output representation.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted text; the main action is front-loaded)Skip. Each sentence earns its place by adding scope, optional behavior, or return-shape detail. This is a model of concise tool documentation.

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 read-only listing tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the include_meta toggle and return shape. The remaining gaps—default vault behavior, folder path format, recursion semantics—are minor but still matter for an agent that needs to call it with vault=null or a nested folder path.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It directly explains include_meta and its effect, and 'in the vault (or a subfolder)' connects vault and folder to the location concept. However, it does not define what a null vault means, how folder paths should be formatted, or how recursive/subfolder traversal behaves.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Markdown notes') with clear scope ('in the vault or a subfolder'), and it is distinct from sibling tools that operate on files, attachments, folders, or search queries. The optional metadata mode is stated immediately, so an agent knows what this tool yields.

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 the main use case—enumerating Markdown notes at a vault or subfolder level—and specifies when to set include_meta=Trueasm but gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer search_notes_tool or query_notes_tool for filtered lookups. The pattern is understandable by inference but not stated as criteria.

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