prime_vault_status

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

The description indicates a read-only operation ('Check') with no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately conveys the tool's non-destructive nature.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the primary use case. However, the return format (e.g., boolean vs. detailed status) is not specified, which could cause minor ambiguity.

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 already has 100% description coverage for the 'names' parameter, providing a clear example. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('Check if... vaulted, available, farmable') and identifies a clear resource ('Prime items'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., relic_drops, lookup_item) by focusing specifically on vault/availability status.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose (checking vault/availability status), but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion cases. The context is sufficient for an agent to infer usage.

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