vault_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a non-destructive read operation, and the description adds context about the access scope (service account) and output fields. It does not explicitly mention side effects, but the action inherently implies none.

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 with no extraneous text. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the return field list is efficiently provided.

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, parameterless list tool with no output schema. The description fully covers the return values (IDs, names, descriptions, types) and access scope. No further information is necessary for an agent to invoke it 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 tool has zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description's phrase 'all vaults' clarifies the default scope, adding modest value beyond the empty schema. No parameter documentation is needed.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('1Password vaults') and scope ('accessible to the service account'). It also states the return fields (IDs, names, descriptions, types), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on items or passwords.

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 usage context is implied: to list all vaults available to the service account. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over siblings like item_list or op_check_ref. The resource being vaults suggests usage, but no direct guidance is given.

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