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 usefully discloses the index-refresh behavior (writes auto-refresh, external edits leave it stale), which is genuine context beyond the tool's output. It does not state read-only/safety profile or any permission/rate constraints, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition ('Index health: ...') followed by tightly relevant usage context. Two short blocks with no padding, though the second paragraph blends usage guidance with behavioral 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and with zero parameters the schema gap is nil. The description supplies purpose and the key staleness caveat, making it complete enough to call correctly.

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 cannot carry semantic weight; baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty argument set.

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 a specific resource and scope: reports index health, specifically notes on disk vs indexed, last run time, and which notes changed. This clearly distinguishes it from search/read siblings, though it does not name a specific sibling it differs from (e.g. index_now) to reach a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit condition for use: 'Call this before trusting a search result,' tied to the trigger of an external manual file edit leaving the index stale. Lacks an explicit pointer to the remediation sibling (index_now) for when the index is stale, so it stops short of a 5.

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