Delimit Vault Health

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing read-only side effects on the vault backend, the require_premium gating, the exact unlicensed response shape, and the underlying backend call. It also aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), adding implementation-level detail without contradiction.

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 well-structured with clear labeled sections: purpose, when to use, when not to use, side effects, prerequisite, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 health-check tool, the description is complete: it covers usage context, exclusions, side effects, licensing prerequisite, error behavior, and return contents. The presence of an output schema also removes the need to heavily describe return structure, and the description still gives a useful summary.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The description explicitly states 'Args: None,' confirming the schema. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and the description handles it adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report vault subsystem health (Pro).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by stating that delimit_vault_search reads content and delimit_vault_snapshot captures state, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: use at session start or as a CI smoke test to confirm vault backend reachability and index integrity. It also states when NOT to use it and names the correct alternatives, making the routing decision unambiguous.

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