vault_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check' strongly implies a read-only operation, and listing the three status aspects adds useful transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, and 'refresh state' is slightly ambiguous—it could mean the status of a refresh rather than triggering a refresh.

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, compact sentence leads with the verb and lists the key status dimensions without filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter status tool with an output schema available to describe return values. The description sufficiently captures the purpose and key aspects for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly; no additional context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has nothing to add about parameter meaning. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the exact resource and aspects it covers: local index availability, chunk count, and refresh state. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings search_notes and read_note, which are search/read operations rather than status checks.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any mention of when a status check is appropriate. The context implies a health-check use case, but the description itself provides no direct usage guidance or exclusions.

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