list_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, whether results are paginated or truncated, or roughly how large the listing can get. With a vault potentially containing many notes, the absence of any size/pagination signal is a real gap for the calling 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?

A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity arguably costs the usage-guidance and behavioral detail noted above rather than being optimal.

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?

The tool is simple (no params) and ships an output schema, so return values need not be described. Still, for a vault-wide enumeration with no annotations, the definition says nothing about read-only safety or result volume, leaving meaningful context for an agent to infer.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the description correctly does not invent any. Baseline for a no-param tool applies, with no compensating detail needed.

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 and resource (list notes) with a scope qualifier ("every note in your vault") that implies no filtering. However, it never names the obvious alternatives in the sibling set — search_notes for filtered queries or read_note for a single note — so differentiation is left to inference.

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 word "every" hints at a bulk-enumeration use case, and "in your vault" scopes the data source, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to search_notes/read_note as the filtered/single-item alternatives. An agent must guess between this and three other note-related siblings.

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