vault_peek

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses return values (size, frontmatter, headings, preview), the non-reading behavior, and the markdown link format for paths. It omits edge-case behaviors but provides solid transparency for a read-only inspection tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. It efficiently combines return value details, usage guidance, and path formatting instructions with no wasted words.

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?

Given the simple schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and how to handle its output paths. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 describes the path parameter with fuzzy resolution (100% coverage), so the description adds no direct parameter details. The path formatting instruction is about output handling rather than the input parameter, keeping this at the baseline.

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 that the tool inspects a file's metadata and structure without reading full content, and enumerates specific outputs (file size, frontmatter, heading outline, preview). This distinguishes it from vault_read, which reads full content.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool to plan which sections to read from large files, and the phrase 'without reading full content' implies an alternative to vault_read. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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