list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description is adequate: it notes the default for includeStubs and what it does. However, it omits details like pagination behavior, ordering, or error conditions, which would help an agent.

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 sentences, no redundant words, and the important instructions about includeStubs are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what is returned (e.g., full note objects vs. names), nor does it mention empty results or ordering. It covers filter options but leaves gaps for a complete invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for includeStubs and mentions limit default but does not significantly enrich the schema's definitions for directory or tag.

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 explicitly states 'List notes in the vault' with optional filters by directory or tag, clearly defining the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search or read_note as a listing operation.

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 gives clear guidance on using includeStubs and filter options but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs. search). The context is implied but could be more direct.

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