vault_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the behavioral detail that the tool returns both frontmatter and body, which is useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., missing note), permissions, or that it is a read-only operation (inferred but not stated).

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an Args block. It front-loads the purpose, provides essential return info, and uses the example efficiently. No filler or redundancy.

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 read tool with one parameter and an output schema available, the description covers the essential aspects: what it reads, what it returns, and how to specify the path. It lacks explicit edge-case handling (e.g., not found), but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'path' parameter as a 'Note path' and providing an example ('concept/connection-pooling'). This gives clear semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare type and title.

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's function: 'Read a note from the vault. Returns its frontmatter and body.' This uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('note from the vault'), and the return behavior is distinct from sibling tools like vault_write, vault_list, or vault_search.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies reading a specific note by path, it does not mention when to use vault_list or vault_search instead, nor does it exclude scenarios or provide context about prerequisites (e.g., note must exist).

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