vaultre_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially does so by disclosing that the output is orientation content (screens, sign-in link) and that it is a prerequisite step. It does not say whether it is read-only, whether the content describes authentication requirements beyond the sign-in link, or how large the returned guidance is, leaving real gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two compact fragments with the subject front-loaded and the imperative 'Call this first' placed last for emphasis; nothing is wasted. The colon-and-parenthetical construction of the first clause is slightly clunky but does not obscure meaning.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), so the description need not be long, but it also never says what the agent actually receives back or whether calling without a task yields a general overview. It covers the why-call-it but not the what-you-get, which is the main remaining gap for an orientation tool.

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?

There is a single optional 'task' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains its meaning ('What you want done in VaultRE, in your words'). The description adds nothing about how the task string shapes the response or what happens when it is omitted, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 states the tool supplies guidance on working in VaultRE and names the concrete domains it covers (enquiries, contacts, properties, viewings) plus the screens and sign-in link. That is enough to distinguish it from the action-oriented siblings (click, open, read, type, close), though it never uses a crisp verb like 'returns documentation' so the resource being fetched stays slightly abstract.

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?

'Call this first' is an explicit ordering instruction that tells the agent to invoke this before the other VaultRE tools, which is exactly the guidance missing from most definitions. It stops short of a 5 because there are no exclusion conditions or named alternatives for cases where the agent already knows the environment.

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