lib_get_vault_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the sheet-scan order, the guarantee that it will not open documents, the preference for kind 4 (VaultName), and the ambiguous two-name case surfaced via other_kind. It stops short of an explicit read-only/no-side-effect statement, but 'never opens one' covers the main risk.

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?

Content is front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, mechanism and edge case next, return fields last. The opening line about Altium writing the Workspace name onto every managed part is useful background but slightly expands the preamble beyond what an agent strictly needs.

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 read tool with an output schema present, the description supplies the mechanism, the ambiguity handling, and the return field names. The return-field explanation is somewhat redundant with the output schema, and explicit routing to vault-related siblings is the one missing piece.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the schema needs explanation and the description introduces no parameter-level ambiguity.

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 (read) and a concrete resource (the Workspace/Vault name used by managed parts), and clarifies it is read off the design rather than computed. It is distinguishable from vault-content siblings like lib_find_vault_components, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied through the read-source mechanism (active sheet first, then other already-open sheets, never opening one), which tells the agent the preconditions. However there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance and no named alternative or exclusion among the many vault-related siblings.

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