read_client_vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, and it mentions returning explicit blockers for missing files. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the core functionality.

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 concise with four sentences including the args. It is front-loaded with purpose and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, auto-resolved items, blocker behavior, and parameter explanations. It could mention output format but is otherwise 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?

The description explains both parameters in detail: account_id is resolved to a client slug via registry, and include_context adds campaign history, assets, and constraints. This compensates fully for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool reads all client intelligence from the Obsidian vault for ad operations, specifying auto-resolved items like brand voice, ICPs, angles, objections, and profile IDs. It distinguishes itself from siblings which focus on ad accounts, campaigns, or creatives.

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 usage for ad operations but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No alternatives are named.

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