vault_find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns matching handles with relevance scores and that credential values are never exposed. This gives clear behavioral expectations. Additional details like whether the vault must be unlocked or side effects are absent, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence gives the primary purpose, the second adds essential constraints. This is ideally front-loaded and minimal.

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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it returns, and a key limitation. It is complete enough for an agent to select this tool correctly. A minor gap is not mentioning prerequisites like vault state (locked/unlocked), but it's still effective.

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 100% and already describes the 'query' parameter with examples. The description adds no further semantic detail about parameters; it only restates the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 finds credentials matching a search query, which is a specific action on a resource. It distinguishes from sibling vault tools like vault_handles (list handles) and vault_store (store) by focusing on search and explicitly noting it does not return credential values.

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 when to use this tool by stating it returns handles with relevance scores and explicitly says 'You will never see credential values.' This guides the agent to use vault_find for discovery and use another tool (e.g., vault_execute) for obtaining values. However, it does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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