Revision date

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

The description frames this as a pure read ('Get ... timestamp'), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, telling an agent the call is not a safe read. That is a direct conflict an agent must resolve with no further context about what side effect occurs, whether the call is idempotent, or what it returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first. It is perhaps too terse for the ambiguity it leaves behind, but nothing is wasted.

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 output schema, no parameter documentation, and a behavioral conflict with the annotations, the description does not tell an agent what the return value looks like (timestamp format/field) or what to do with it beyond 'decide whether to sync'. Too much must be inferred for correct invocation.

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?

Three parameters (form, params, json_body) exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description makes no mention of any of them. It does not clarify whether the caller must supply anything or whether the generic wrapper params can be ignored, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Get last vault revision timestamp') and adds the client-facing meaning (sync decision), which is genuinely informative. It is distinguishable from siblings like vaultwarden_version or vaultwarden_now by the 'revision' resource, though the description never names those close alternatives explicitly.

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 parenthetical 'used by clients to decide whether to sync' implies the caller's intent (poll to see if data changed), which is useful implied usage. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of authentication needs, and no routing away from vaultwarden_sync or vaultwarden_now.

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