vault_list_vaults

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status, source, and size stats, implying a read-only list operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, potential network calls for GitHub URLs, or response format nuances beyond the schema. The verb 'Lists' suggests safety, but deeper behavioral traits like performance or side effects are not addressed.

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 action ('Lists all registered vaults') and immediately provides useful details about the output. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately sized.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (current status, source, size stats). It does not explicitly mention the response_format parameter, but that is covered in the schema. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's capability, though it could benefit from a note that it is a read-only operation.

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 only one optional parameter, response_format, with a complete description and enum values. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: 'Lists all registered vaults' with specific details about status, source, and size stats. This unambiguous verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_list_notes and vault_search, making its purpose immediately clear.

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 usage for obtaining an overview of registered vaults, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no guidance about using this before other vault-specific operations, but the purpose itself suggests a general listing use case.

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