skill_list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it explains that notes are additive records created via store_skill_note() or manually, without editing existing files. It also discloses the two possible return formats based on markdown_output. It does not mention permissions or error cases, but for a read-only listing tool this is sufficient.

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 well-structured into sections (purpose, description, args, returns, usage) and each sentence contributes value. It is slightly verbose with redundancy between the first line and the description paragraph, but remains efficient and easy to scan.

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 two-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it covers purpose, parameter semantics, return values for both modes, and usage guidance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return structure, but the description still covers it explicitly.

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 must compensate. It fully describes both parameters: 'name' is the hyphen-case skill name matching the directory, and 'markdown_output' controls whether output is a formatted markdown string or JSON list. This adds complete meaning beyond the bare 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: 'List notes created under a skill's _notes directory' and expands with 'Enumerates note files stored under a skill's _notes and notes directories.' This is a specific verb+resource, distinct from sibling tools like skill_list_assets or skill_read_asset.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to browse available notes and select one to read with skill_read_asset().' It also explains when to set markdown_output for a more readable format. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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