mnemosyne_vaults

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses the token-versus-id distinction, the output fields, and the fact that unconfigured vaults are flagged and refused. It does not overtly state that the operation is read-only, but that is obvious from 'List' and the absence of destructive language.

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 three sentences with no filler: the first states purpose and output, the second gives the usage trigger, and the third clarifies the token/id pitfall and access constraints. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the returned fields, explains when to call it, warns against the id/token confusion, and notes the configured-vault limitation. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes beyond that baseline by explaining how its returned token should be used as the `vault` argument for other tools, which adds semantic value for the broader tool set even though this tool itself takes no inputs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the memory vaults this Mnemosyne OS exposes', and enumerates the returned fields (token, display name, chronicle count). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that query, ask, or ingest rather than enumerate vaults.

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?

It gives an explicit invocation condition: call this first when unsure which vault to use or when the user names an unfamiliar memory store. It also provides downstream guidance by instructing the agent to pass the returned token, not the internal id, to other tools, and it states the configuration restriction on accessible vaults.

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