vault_lint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well. It reveals it runs the `mdv check` command, returns an 'AI-friendly summary of vault health,' and importantly flags that the fix parameter is 'not yet implemented' — preventing an agent from expecting repairs it won't get. It could have explicitly stated read-only behavior, but 'check' plus 'returns a report' reasonably implies it.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded with the most important information, followed by a compact implementation note and structured Args/Returns sections. The parameter documentation is slightly verbose but earns its place given the 0% schema coverage; no sentence is wasted.

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 there is an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it still offers a useful high-level summary ('issues grouped by category'). It covers the command executed, all parameter semantics, and the unimplemented fix behavior. Minor gaps: it never frames the tool as read-only and doesn't discuss performance or vault prerequisites, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 does thoroughly. It enumerates every valid category value (broken_references, malformed_wikilinks, schema_violations, structural_consistency, orphaned_notes, db_sync), explains the null default via 'Omit to run all checks,' and clarifies the fix boolean's semantics including its unimplemented status. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 'string|null' and 'boolean' schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check vault structural correctness' with concrete examples in parentheses (broken links, schema violations, orphans). It clearly distinguishes this as a whole-vault health check rather than a note-level operation, though it doesn't explicitly name validate_note as the sibling it is not.

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 context is implied through the category list and 'Omit to run all checks.' It makes clear that you can scope the check by category, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the nearby sibling validate_note, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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