vault_select_target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does deliver real behavioral context: no database is created and no existing session is replaced until browser authentication succeeds, which tells the agent this is a non-destructive, gated operation. However, 'probe' is unexplained — no indication that it performs a network request to the given URL, what a failure looks like, or what the response returns.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the scope stated up front and the safety caveat second; nothing is wasted. The phrasing 'Select local' is slightly clipped and could read more naturally as 'select a local vault'.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive setup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important side-effect guarantee but omits what happens on a failed probe and how return values differ between local and remote modes. Adequate, but not complete enough to call it robust.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partly does: it adds the meaningful constraint that the server URL must be HTTPS, which the schema does not state. It never says that server_url is required when mode=remote, or that it is ignored when mode=local, leaving the mode/parameter relationship ambiguous.

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 ('Select') and resource ('local or ... HTTPS vault server'), and makes the local-vs-remote distinction explicit, which is the core of this tool. It does not name any sibling tool, so the boundary with vault_begin_enrollment or vault_status must be inferred.

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?

Usage is only implied: the two modes are described, so an agent can guess this is the entry point for choosing a target before other vault operations. There is no explicit 'use this before X' or 'do not use when Y', and no mention of the alternative flow (e.g. enrollment) that the sibling tools suggest.

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