search_vault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the scope (328 official prompts, Free+Premium) and the search dimensions, but does not disclose non-obvious behaviors like whether it modifies anything, rate limits, ordering, or pagination. As a search tool, it is presumably read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 and scope. It is efficient with no redundant wording, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 search tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it searches, the collection size, and example categories. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but this is largely inferable. The absence of a required parameter and the presence of a limit param are covered by the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters (type, limit, query, category). The description adds examples of search terms but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 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 it searches a specific collection (328 official MotionSites prompts) by niche, effect, or technique, with concrete examples. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_vault_prompt (retrieves a single prompt) and list_templates (lists templates) by focusing on search/filter capability.

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 finding prompts via keywords, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_vault_prompt or list_templates. It lacks direct guidance on when not to use it or what distinguishes it from sibling search-like tools.

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