list

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must explain behavior. It discloses that the tool returns a list of notes with titles and tags, and that it supports filters. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or that it does not modify the vault. For a simple list operation this is acceptable, but the lack of an explicit safety statement leaves some ambiguity.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a clear Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes the information easily scannable. There is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple list tool with three optional parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. The existence of an output schema further clarifies return values, and the description's mention of 'titre et tags' aligns with typical schema. No major gaps are apparent.

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 input schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: folder filtering with '/' for root, tags as comma-separated, and limit with its default of 50. It also clarifies optionality and behavior, providing semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Liste les notes du vault' (list vault notes). It specifies the resource (notes) and the action (list), making it unambiguous. Although it does not explicitly compare to siblings like 'search', the verb 'list' and the mention of filtering by folder/tags distinguish it as a bulk listing operation rather than a text 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 usage by explaining the tool's filtering capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'search' or 'read'. There is no mention of 'use this for listing all notes' or 'use search for full-text queries'. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but explicit exclusions or alternatives are missing.

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