vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behaviors. It notes that slop_check is read-only, deslop is journaled with confirmation, and delete_folder requires confirm and empty folders. However, it doesn't consistently label actions as read-only or write (e.g., sync_index, undo are mutating but not flagged), and side effects like index regeneration are implied rather than explicit.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads 'Vault maintenance' but quickly becomes a list of actions without visual separation. While information-dense, it could be more readable with bullet points or sections. Each sentence earns its place, but structure is suboptimal.

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 24 parameters and no output schema, the description covers action semantics, parameter usage, and key constraints for each action. It explains what each action does (e.g., 'regenerate index.md from frontmatter') and which parameters apply. Missing details include the structure of the health report and exact output of manifest read, but overall it's comprehensive for a complex tool.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema achieve 100% coverage. The description adds value by mapping parameters to specific actions (e.g., 'Used by create_folder, list_folders, and delete_folder actions') and imposing additional constraints (e.g., 'confirm must be true'). This extra context helps agents correctly select and combine parameters.

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 opens with 'Vault maintenance' and enumerates 11 specific actions with brief explanations, providing a clear overview of the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools (graph, note, search) as a maintenance utility, though the high-level purpose is fragmented across actions.

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 description implicitly guides usage by listing available actions and their constraints (e.g., 'delete requires confirm, empty folders only'), but it lacks explicit statements about when to use this tool versus siblings or alternative approaches. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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