query

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are ranked relevant text chunks with source files and implies a read-only search, but it says nothing about result limits, ranking strength, behavior when the vault is empty or unknown, or whether the call is side-effect free.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the usage trigger. The final sentence on return values is mildly redundant given the output schema exists, but it is short and not wasteful.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and result shape. What is missing is how an agent should obtain or validate vault_name and how this differs from the many sibling list/read tools, which leaves a real gap in a crowded toolset.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two required parameters, so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. The phrase "user asks a question" implies the query is natural language, but vault_name is never explained — whether it is a display name, an ID, or discoverable via list_vaults is left entirely opaque.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ("Search for relevant information in a CtxVault vault") plus the mechanism ("semantic similarity"), which clearly separates it from sibling listing tools like list_docs or list_vaults. It is slightly weakened by the bare name "query", but the prose resolves the ambiguity.

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?

It states an explicit trigger: use when the user asks a question that might be answered by their personal knowledge base or documents. It gives no exclusions and never names alternatives, so an agent must infer when list_docs or list_entities would be better, but the positive guidance is clear.

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