vault_ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the retrieval method (BM25 + semantic vector) and result ordering (relevance descending), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or discuss potential side effects, rate limits, or failure modes, leaving some ambiguity.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core mechanism and output ordering. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the search algorithm and result ordering. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's function without further elaboration.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (query and top_k) with clear descriptions. The description adds context about relevance sorting, which indirectly clarifies how top_k is used, but it does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it performs hybrid retrieval (BM25 + semantic vector) and returns records sorted by relevance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_put (write) and vault_list (list all).

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 is implied by the tool name 'ask' and the retrieval-focused description, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling context provides some signal but not direct instruction.

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