scan_vault

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It only hints that the analysis runs in the background, but fails to mention whether it is read-only, if it modifies the vault, performance implications, or what the return value looks like. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified, which undermines the value of its brevity. It is concise but not sufficiently informative.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 2 enums, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain how mode/focus affect results, what outputs are provided, or how it fits with sibling tools. The description is inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have basic descriptions (e.g., 'Analysis mode', 'Analysis focus area'). The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('perform') and resource ('Obsidian vault'), but 'comprehensive background analysis' is vague and doesn't specify what the scan actually inspects (health, content, relationships). It also doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_insights, which may similarly analyze vault data.

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 instead of alternatives, nor which mode/focus to select for different scenarios. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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