list_vaults

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the output contents and never states that the operation is read-only, whether any side effects exist, or whether authentication is needed. The agent must infer safety from the tool name.

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, short phrase with no filler words; it front-loads the domain and then lists the key output dimensions. 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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential output content: vaults, assets, fee, and timelock. It could be more complete by explicitly saying 'lists all vaults' and noting it is read-only, but no invocation-critical information is missing.

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 an empty schema, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter documentation is needed. The description's itemization of vault details is useful output context rather than parameter explanation, and there is no schema gap to compensate for.

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 identifies the resource (vaults) and the returned data (holdings, fee, timelock), and 'Earn side' hints at a distinct domain from the market and borrow siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns' and does not name sibling tools, so it does not fully meet the 5-level bar.

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 Earn side' provides a contextual hint that this tool is for Earn vault information, which implicitly differentiates it from list_markets and other lending/borrowing tools. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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