list_notes

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safe-read aspect. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: namespaces themselves are never enumerable and keys starting with 'p-' are never listed. These details go beyond the annotations and help shape the agent's expectations.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first front-loads the action and resource, the second gives the important exceptions. There is no redundant wording and every sentence contributes necessary behavioral information.

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 single-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately conveys what will be returned and what will not. It does not mention pagination or return format, but that is easy to infer for a key-listing operation and the annotations already state the operation is non-destructive.

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 already fully describes the namespace parameter with a pattern and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional format or syntax details beyond restating the note-namespace concept, so the 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 states a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('keys in a note namespace'). It also gives distinguishing boundary conditions (namespaces are not enumerable, p- keys are omitted) that separate it from siblings like read_note or list_rooms. No tautology or vague phrasing.

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 content makes the listing scope clear but does not explicitly say when an agent should pick this tool over siblings such as read_note, write_note, or list_rooms. Usage is implied by the operation type and noun phrase rather than stated as guidance or a when-not-to-use condition.

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