list_vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that hidden folders (.obsidian, .trash, .git) are excluded by default and that recursion/depth is supported. However, it does not disclose the return format, ordering, path formatting, or whether hidden folders can be included despite the phrase 'by default'.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and then add the most decision-relevant behavior: recursion depth control and hidden-folder exclusion. No wasted words or redundant restatements of parameter names.

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, the description plus a fully documented schema cover the main usage decisions: what is listed, recursion behavior, depth limits, note-only filtering, and hidden exclusions. The absence of an output schema makes the missing return-format detail a minor gap, but the overall context is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with names, defaults, and descriptions. The description reinforces the recursive/depth ideas but adds no new parameter-level meaning; a baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List files and folders in the vault.' It further clarifies scope with recursive listing support and hidden-folder exclusions, making it clearly distinct from siblings like read_note (which reads content) and search_vault (which searches).

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 the vault's file/folder structure is needed, especially with recursion or depth control—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives such as search_vault or read_note. There are no exclusions or direct comparisons with sibling tools.

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