List Notes

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing sort order and, importantly, that output is truncated at `limit` while the total count is still reported. The one gap is that no offset/pagination cursor exists, so truncated results cannot be resumed — that limitation is implied but not spelled out.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first covers scope and return shape, the second covers truncation semantics and intended uses. The most decision-relevant fact (what it enumerates) is front-loaded, and nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so (sorted relative paths, total count). For a two-parameter, zero-required listing tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the 1-10000 range, default of 50, and the note that the total is still reported. The description's mentions of `limit` and folder scoping essentially restate the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (enumerate), resource (markdown notes), scope (whole vault or one folder), and even the return shape (sorted relative paths plus total count). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_notes or get_note, which retrieve by query or by identity rather than enumerating the vault.

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?

Gives three concrete use cases: browsing vault structure, building a file picker, and enumerating targets for batch processing. It stops short of naming an alternative and the condition that selects it (e.g., 'for query-based retrieval use search_notes instead'), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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