list_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists metadata and supports filters/pagination, but does not explain default sort order, pagination metadata (e.g., total count), or any side effects. Adequate but could be more detailed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 description lists the metadata fields returned, which is essential since no output schema exists. It covers filters and pagination. However, it does not mention pagination metadata (e.g., total count, next page token) or default behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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 description mentions 'folder/type/status/tag filters and pagination' which summarizes parameters, but since the input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds no new meaning beyond repetition. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'notes', specifies the metadata fields returned (path, title, frontmatter, mtime, size, hash), and mentions supported filters and pagination, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_note or create_note.

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 phrase 'for browsing UI' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It implies it is for listing multiple notes, not for retrieving a single note (which is get_note), but does not explicitly exclude other use cases or specify when not to use it.

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