akb_vault_info

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

The description discloses the type of data returned (counts, owner, last activity), which gives users a clear expectation of the output. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the wording strongly implies a non-destructive query. This is adequate for a simple info tool.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action ('Get detailed vault information'). Every word adds value, and there is no superfluous content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview of the return values. It could be slightly more exhaustive (e.g., explicitly listing all fields), but it covers the key elements and is sufficient for agent understanding.

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 already describes the 'vault' parameter as 'Vault name' with 100% coverage. The description does not add further semantic meaning beyond this. Following the guidelines, when schema coverage is high, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed vault information' and lists the specific pieces of information returned (owner, member count, counts of documents/tables/files/edges, last activity). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'akb_list_vaults' (which lists vaults) and 'akb_vault_members' (which focuses on members only).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use when detailed vault info is needed, but there is no mention of when not to use it or how it differs from related tools. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is a minor gap.

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