unlock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that an interactive prompt for a master password may appear, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the vault is already unlocked (error? no-op?), whether this has side effects, or what the response format is. For an action tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral detail is expected.

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 short sentences, zero wasted words. The critical behavioral detail (interactive password prompt) is included upfront. Well-structured and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 operation on a vault, the description covers the core purpose and one important behavioral quirk (interactive prompt). However, it's a state-changing action (unlocking a vault) that could benefit from noting prerequisites (vault must exist/be initialized, sync state implications) or the operational impact of unlocking. The sibling tools create/edit/delete suggest a broad workflow, but the description doesn't place unlock within 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 and 100% schema coverage, so the schema describes everything. The description appropriately notes the interactive prompt behavior, which is the only parameter-adjacent consideration. With zero params, baseline is 4, and the description doesn't detract from this.

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 clearly states the verb (unlock) and resource (the vault), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'lock' tool by implying the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 description implies when to use it (when vault is locked and access is needed) but doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. Given the sibling list includes 'status', the agent could infer checking status first, but the description doesn't explicitly guide this.

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