vault_tidy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly reveals a key side effect: original records are marked as folded, indicating they are not deleted. It does not mention reversibility, permissions, or return details, but the core state change is transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and effect without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well structured.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the transformation and the fate of original records. It could mention the return value or when to use it, but given the low complexity, the description is largely complete.

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 and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no inputs are needed and adds no conflicting or redundant parameter information; it fully covers the (non-existent) parameter requirements.

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 (fold/compress) and a clear resource (mutually similar records), stating both the main action—folding similar records into a summary—and the side effect of marking originals as folded. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like vault_put, vault_list, or vault_drop.

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 when memory compression or deduplication is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough to infer the intended use, but explicit guidance is missing.

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