status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It says what the tool checks but doesn't disclose what the return value looks like (boolean? message?), whether it has side effects, or whether it requires auth. For a status/check tool this is a notable gap.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose directly. Zero wasted words 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?

For a simple 0-parameter check tool this is reasonably scoped, but the absence of output schema and annotations, combined with no description of what the response contains (unlocked boolean? status message?), leaves meaningful ambiguity. A one-line mention of the expected result format would elevate it.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adequately conveys the only 'input' is the implicit vault context, requiring no parameter explanation.

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 'Check if the vault is unlocked.' clearly states the tool checks vault lock status with a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like lock/unlock beyond the obvious read-vs-action differentiation, and doesn't clarify what 'vault' refers to or what the output means.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It's implied this is a read/check operation distinct from lock/unlock actions, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided.

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