mnemosyne_vault_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds: it discloses that unconfigured vaults are flagged and refused, that the `id` line is the host's internal path and must never be re-passed, and it conveys the read-only nature of the call. This prevents real invocation errors against the sibling tools.

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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences, front-loaded with purpose before usage and output mechanics. The minor template artifact '(bold, e.g. MNEMOSYNE_OS)' and the inconsistent TOKEN/token casing keep it from a perfect structural score.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: the returned fields, when to call it, how to consume the result in sibling calls, and the access-control failure mode for unconfigured vaults. No critical gap remains.

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 is empty, so the baseline is 4, and the description still adds value above it: the token-vs-`id` guidance teaches the agent exactly what to feed into the sibling tools' `vault` parameter, avoiding a common misuse. Since there are zero parameters, the description cannot do more than this, and it does it well.

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 specific verb and resource ('List the memory vaults this Mnemosyne OS exposes') and names the output contract (TOKEN, display name, chronicle count). None of the 24 siblings deals with vault enumeration, so it is clearly distinguishable without opening any schema.

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?

Gives two explicit trigger conditions ('when you are unsure which vault to query/ask/ingest against' and 'when the user refers to a memory store by a name you have not seen') and positions it as the entry point ('Call this first'). It also routes the agent to the downstream tool families by explaining how the returned token becomes their `vault` argument.

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