vault_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses behavioral details such as path root, depth levels, and type filtering, which are useful. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what exactly is returned (note names vs. full contents), or edge cases like hidden files or invalid paths. For a listing tool, this is moderate coverage.

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 brief, front-loaded sentence followed by a clean args list. Every line is informative and necessary, with no fluff or repetition. The format is easily scannable.

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?

The description covers all three parameters and provides clear examples. The tool is relatively simple, and an output schema exists (so return format is not needed). It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings, but given the tool's simplicity and the parameter documentation, it is largely complete.

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 has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with examples (e.g., path uses '"skill"' and '""' for root, depth default, type_filter examples). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 states a clear action ('Browse notes under a path') and the resource (notes in a vault). It distinguishes from siblings like vault_read (read a single note) and vault_search (search content), though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'browse' implies listing, which is distinct from other operations.

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 gives clear context for parameters (e.g., path examples, depth default, type_filter usage) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vault_traverse or vault_search. Usage is implied through parameter explanations but not explicitly differentiated.

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