Strata Vault status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about what is read (sealed owner state and external-session readiness) but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or auth requirements. It adds moderate value beyond annotations, hence a 3.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It efficiently conveys the core action and key constraint, earning its place without redundancy.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema and only two flat parameters, the description provides adequate context: it names the data being read and a key constraint. It could elaborate on what 'sealed owner state' means or clarify the role of sessionPublicKey, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering side effects, 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly explain walletAddress or sessionPublicKey. The phrase 'optional external-session readiness' alludes to sessionPublicKey, but there is no clear mapping or elaboration. With two parameters and 0% coverage, the description fails to add sufficient meaning beyond the 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 action ('Read') and resource ('sealed owner state' and 'optional external-session readiness'), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling vault tools by noting it works 'without construction identifiers.' This is a specific verb+resource pair with a clear differentiator.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to read vault state without construction identifiers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'without construction identifiers' clause provides clear context that this is for cases where those identifiers are absent, differentiating it from other vault operations.

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