Vault 정보

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose the absence of side effects, any required setup, or potential error conditions (e.g., missing vault). Minimal behavioral detail beyond the obvious.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the returned items. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the essential return values, but with no output schema, it lacks detail on the response structure (e.g., data types, key names). It also does not address edge cases like an unconfigured vault. Adequate for a simple info tool, yet there are clear gaps in return format and failure behavior.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value by enumerating the return fields, which indirectly helps an agent understand what no-input invocation yields.

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 identifies the tool as returning specific vault metadata (path, default author, note count, config file location). The verb '반환한다' (returns) is specific, and the listed items distinguish it from sibling tools that operate on notes or directories.

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 purpose strongly implies when to use it: to retrieve vault-level configuration and stats. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but the context of returning vault info is clear and distinct from note/file operations, providing adequate guidance without needing exclusions.

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