vibe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a safe, non-destructive, and repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by listing commands, but doesn't elaborate on what each command does (e.g., how 'suggest' differs from 'search'), rate limits, or authentication needs. It doesn't contradict annotations, so a baseline 3 is appropriate given the annotations cover core safety aspects.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose ('Find people building similar things'), followed by a list of commands. It uses minimal words without unnecessary elaboration. However, the command list could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points or brief explanations) to improve readability, but it remains efficient overall.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It states the purpose and commands but lacks details on command behaviors, output format, or integration with sibling tools. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive for effective agent use without trial and error.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'command' as a discovery command with enum values and 'query' as a search query for the search command. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining command behaviors or query formats. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is justified as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Find people building similar things' with specific commands listed. It provides a verb ('Find') and resource ('people building similar things'), making the intent understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this discovery tool from sibling tools like vibe_who or vibe_status, which might also involve finding people or status information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists commands ('suggest, search, active') but doesn't explain their contexts or when to choose one over another. There's no mention of sibling tools or scenarios where vibe_discover is preferred over vibe_who or vibe_status, leaving usage unclear.

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