vault_overview

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it discharges the most important part: 'No cambia nada' explicitly declares the operation is non-mutating and therefore safe to run at any time. It says nothing about cost, latency, or whether the scan can be large on a big vault, which is a minor remaining gap for a zero-parameter read tool.

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?

One tight sentence plus a one-clause safety statement. The diagnostic targets are front-loaded as a scannable list and no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still previews the categories of findings. For a zero-param read-only tool this is nearly complete; only the relationship to list_vault is left unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to communicate; baseline 4 applies. The enumeration of what the overview reports (folders, orphan notes, tag variants) partially stands in for describing the output shape.

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 clear verb+resource in substance: it produces a diagnostic overview of the vault for organizing it, and enumerates exactly what it surfaces (folders, loose notes, unlinked/undescribed notes, duplicate or variant tags, similar names). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_vault, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

'Para ordenarlo' implies the cleanup/organization scenario, which is a reasonable usage cue. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no pointer to list_vault or search_knowledge as alternatives, so the agent must infer the choice.

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