vault_sleep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that operation is gated by a config file, that recent/high-Ebbinghaus notes are skipped, and that dry_run previews rather than mutates. It does not say whether compression is reversible, what 'compress' does to note content, or whether the operation requires specific vault permissions.

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-loads the purpose in one sentence, then lists the threshold configuration and skip rule compactly, then the single argument. Slightly over-structured ('Args:' heading for one parameter) but free of 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a mutating vault operation with no annotations, the description covers trigger conditions, config source, skip logic, and a preview mode – the main residual gap is whether compression is destructive or recoverable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'If True, show candidates without making changes' tells the agent exactly what dry_run does, which the bare boolean-with-default schema does not. With only one parameter, this is adequate, though the default behavior when omitted is only implied by the schema's default:false.

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 verb and resource ('Compress old low-activity notes to slim down the vault') with a clear scope: old, low-activity notes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like consolidate_tool, prune_archive_tool, or sleep_status, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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 explains which notes qualify (per-folder age thresholds and Ebbinghaus score <= 0.5), which is effectively usage criteria. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over prune_archive_tool, consolidate_tool, or sleep_status, nor whether a prior audit or dry_run pass is recommended. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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