get_vault_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves 'contents', but does not specify whether the output is plain text, markdown, binary, or structured data. It also omits any mention of auth requirements, rate limits, file size limits, or error handling, which are critical for safe invocation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality. While slightly more detail might be beneficial, it remains appropriately concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the input needed. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., 'contents' is ambiguous), error conditions, or any limitations, leaving the agent with partial information.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'vault-relative path' explains that the path is relative to the vault, not an absolute filesystem path, which adds crucial context beyond the schema's bare string type. However, it does not specify format details (e.g., leading slash, allowed characters), which could lead to errors.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('contents of a vault file') with the specific qualifier 'by its vault-relative path', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_vault_file_partial' that retrieve partial content. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 such as 'get_vault_file_partial' or 'list_vault_files'. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without explicit instructions.

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