my_vault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool is read-only ('view', 'shows'), which is transparent about behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 well-structured with a title line, bilingual details, and an Args section. It is not overly verbose, but the bilingual repetition slightly reduces conciseness. Each sentence earns its place, though some redundancy exists.

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 presence of an output schema (implied by context), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main functionality and parameters adequately. However, it could mention the format or scope of data (e.g., all artifacts or filtered) for completeness.

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 has one parameter (username) with no schema description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining it is a GitHub username and defaults to env config, adding meaningful context beyond the schema. This meets the need for low coverage, scoring above 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 the tool shows artifacts, grades, and local cave status, with specific details like refinement count. It uses strong verbs 'view' and 'show', and the bilingual text ensures clarity. While there are sibling tools like treasure_pavilion, my_vault distinguishes itself by focusing on the cave, forge, and vault status rather than just treasures.

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 implies usage for viewing personal artifacts and cave status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like forge_agent or treasure_pavilion. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, relying on the agent to infer from the purpose.

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