vault_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only diagnostic purpose by listing what the report contains and by framing the output as an aid for choosing maintenance work, not performing it. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or describe return format, but for a zero-argument health overview the implied behavior is clear.

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 sentences deliver a concise list of report contents and an actionable use case. The opening metaphor is vivid but immediately followed by concrete metrics, and every word earns its place.

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 no-input tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the report contains and what decision it should inform. An agent can correctly select and invoke vault_health without needing additional context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies, and the description does not introduce any conflicting or confusing parameter-related claims.

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 names the resource (vault graph health) and enumerates the specific diagnostic categories: undistilled backlog, orphan notes, unresolved links, most-connected hubs, and per-folder counts. It is clear how this differs from siblings like list_notes or stale_notes, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb such as 'show' or 'report'.

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 second sentence gives an explicit usage context: 'Use it to pick the next maintenance job.' This tells the agent when to call the tool. It does not name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the health-report focus is distinct enough to guide selection.

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