aureon_get_vault_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'compact' output but says nothing about auth requirements, read-only nature, what field set is returned, or what 'funding status' concretely means, which is insufficient for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single short fragment with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a no-arg tool, though the trailing clause is more cryptic than informative.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information, and it leaves the return shape and meaning of 'funding status' undefined. For a state-introspection tool an agent needs to know what it receives; this is incomplete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add or omit.

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?

States the resource ('vault funding status') with a vague qualifier ('compact'), but does not distinguish it from the sibling aureon_get_vault or clarify what 'status' contains. The phrase 'ready state before restore' gestures at intent without committing to a specific verb or output.

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?

'ready state before restore' weakly implies a timing context, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. aureon_get_restore_plan or aureon_get_vault) is given. An agent must infer the workflow position.

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