vault_find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Find' implies a read-only lookup and 'metadata' signals that credential secrets are not returned, which is useful context. However, it does not state matching behavior, auth requirements, empty-result handling, or whether results are paginated.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no wasted wording. It is perhaps excessively terse for a tool with an undocumented parameter, but the phrasing itself is efficient.

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 one-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what metadata fields are returned, how matching works, or how the tool relates to sibling vault tools.

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 sole parameter service_id has 0% schema description coverage. 'By service' weakly maps to the parameter but does not clarify whether the value is an opaque ID, a service name, or a specific format.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: find credential metadata. It also scopes the lookup by service, and saying metadata rather than credential helps distinguish it from vault_export_credential. It does not explicitly differentiate among vault_list or vault_select_target.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than vault_list, vault_status, or other siblings. The only implied usage is when a service identifier is known, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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