List notes in vault

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds that results return JSON by default, which is behavioral context, but does not detail other traits like pagination or performance.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no filler, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value.

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 listing tool with annotations and well-described schema, the description covers the basic purpose and default output format. However, it lacks details on the structure of returned data (e.g., whether it returns paths or titles) and does not clarify if the listing is recursive.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, only reiterating the default format.

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 it lists every note in the vault, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling listing tools like obsidian_files_with_tag or obsidian_search, which may also list notes under certain criteria.

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?

It mentions being useful as a first step for discovery, implying a use case, but does not specify when not to use it or name alternative tools for filtered or targeted listing.

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