list_notes

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

The annotations are all false and therefore provide no meaningful behavioral hints. The description does not disclose whether filters combine with AND/OR, how limit applies, whether include_content affects output, or what the response shape is. For a list tool with zero annotation support, the description should carry more behavioral burden.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's action and primary filter dimensions with no wasted words. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 9 optional parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and unhelpful annotations, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in many cases. Missing details include default limit behavior, the meaning of include_content, and how multiple filters combine.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It names most filterable parameters (folder, tags, projects, status, area, frontmatter) but omits limit and include_content, and does not explain how frontmatter_property and frontmatter_value work together. This is partial but not adequate compensation for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb ('List and filter') and a specific resource ('vault notes'), and enumerates clear filter dimensions: folder, tags, projects, status, area, or frontmatter. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like get_note and search.

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 when to use the tool (whenever you need to list or filter notes) but provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer search or get_note instead. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so the agent must infer usage context.

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