List notes

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description does add real information beyond the annotations by stating the return is 'note paths' (not note content) and that the default scope is the whole vault, but it says nothing about ordering, limits, or whether folder listing is recursive.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Nothing to trim.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the basic shape (paths, optional folder) but leaves open whether results are paginated, how the limit default behaves, and how ordering works. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool that can return many entries.

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?

Coverage is 50%: the folder parameter is documented in the schema, and the description merely restates it ('optionally under a folder'). The limit parameter is never mentioned in the description, so nothing compensates for the half of the schema that lacks semantic detail.

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?

Specific verb 'List' with the resource narrowed to 'note paths', plus a scoping qualifier ('optionally under a folder'). An agent can tell this is a path-enumeration tool rather than a content search, though it never names search_notes as the contrasting sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer search_notes or read_note instead, and no prerequisites. The only conditional ('optionally under a folder') describes a parameter, not a usage decision.

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