get_vault_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While it indicates a read operation, it does not specify what 'detailed information' includes, whether the entry must exist, or what response format to expect. This is a minimal description that does not add sufficient context beyond the tool's 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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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 relatively simple with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. However, the description omits any information about the return value or what 'detailed information' entails, and it does not reference sibling tools. This is sufficient for a basic getter but leaves gaps in fully understanding the tool's 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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter 'vaultId' with a clear description ('The unique identifier of the vault entry'). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific vault entry' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read operation for a single entry. It is concise and understandable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_vault_property or search_vault_by_type, which could also return entry-related information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as list_vault_entries, get_vault_property, and search_vault_by_type exist, but the description does not mention any of them or provide context for choosing this tool. This leaves the agent without explicit usage direction.

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