Post access

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

The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in annotations: the call is anonymous/unauthenticated (though openWorldHint hints at it). It does not mention that this POST endpoint consumes an access attempt / can invalidate the Send when the access limit is reached, which is why readOnlyHint=false -- an important nuance for an invoker. Not a contradiction, but a gap.

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?

A single short phrase with the most important qualifier ('Anonymous') front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It errs on the side of under-specification rather than verbosity, so it is efficient but not fully sufficient.

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?

With three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a dense set of near-identical Send/access siblings, the description leaves the agent without the information needed to construct a correct call. It should at minimum identify the access-id parameter and the expected response shape.

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%: three parameters (form, params, json_body) are completely undocumented. The description says 'by access id' but never says which parameter carries the access id or in what form (path vs body), so the agent must guess between three opaque carriers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch a Send's metadata by access id. That is concrete and immediately actionable. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings in the huge toolset, notably vaultwarden_post_access_legacy, vaultwarden_post_access_file, vaultwarden_get_send, and vaultwarden_download_send, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 'Anonymous:' prefix and '(for viewing/decrypting)' parenthetical imply the usage scenario: unauthenticated retrieval of a Send so its contents can be decrypted. But it never states when this is preferable to the legacy or file variants, nor what preconditions (valid access id, Send not expired) apply.

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