vault_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read-only operation ('Check the sync status'). The description adds detail about the returned data (counts, times, memory count), providing useful context beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and output without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and readOnlyHint provided, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and return values. It could mention potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., vault must exist), but for a simple status check it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'vault_path' described as 'Absolute path to the Obsidian vault directory'. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Check' and resource 'sync status of an Obsidian vault', listing exact data returned (total files, synced/pending/changed counts, last sync time, memory count). This clearly distinguishes from siblings like vault_sync (which performs sync) and memory_stats (different scope).

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 the tool is for checking sync status, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., vault_sync for performing sync, or memory_stats for different stats). No when-not-to-use or context exclusions are mentioned.

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