list_vault

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('list') and specifies the output content (path + description). However, it omits behavioral details such as recursion, ordering, or handling of hidden files, which could matter in edge cases.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes an illustrative example. Every component earns its place without redundancy or excessive detail.

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 one optional parameter, the description provides the core information needed: what it returns (paths and descriptions) and how prefix works. The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to explain return values. Missing details like whether files are listed recursively are likely minor for typical usage.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'prefix' parameter, leaving 0% schema coverage. The description adds meaning by stating it is optional and giving an example ('projects'), which implies it filters by path prefix. This is sufficient for the agent to understand the parameter's role.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'vault', specifying that it lists .md files with their path and frontmatter description. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself, but the purpose is unambiguous. The optional prefix is mentioned, adding specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_knowledge or list_sources. The description only explains what the tool does, not the contexts where it is preferred. There are no directives on prerequisites or exclusions.

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