list_vault

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape and the non-obvious condition where a '_notice' key appears after startup meta updates. It omits other meaningful behavior: whether listing is recursive, how results are ordered, and what happens when an unknown type is supplied.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, then the argument default, then the return contract. No filler sentences, though 'vault type folder' is a slightly opaque phrase that could have been clarified at no length cost.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description supplies the return shape as a type_name-to-filenames mapping, which is the key missing piece. Combined with the notice caveat that is adequate for a simple one-parameter list tool, with only ordering and recursion left unstated.

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 coverage is 0% and the 'type' property has no description, so the description must compensate. It explains the omission semantics (list all folders) but never explains what a 'type folder' is or what valid type names look like, leaving the core filtering argument under-specified.

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 names a concrete verb ('List') and scope ('items in a vault type folder'), which is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like write_vault or patch_vault. It does not explicitly contrast with read_vault, search_vault, or find_nodes, so the differentiation from read-style siblings is left partly to inference.

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?

'Omit type to list all folders' tells the agent how to broaden the call, which is real usage guidance for the one decision the tool involves. However, it never says when to prefer this over search_vault, find_nodes, or read_vault, and gives no guidance on the type argument's valid values.

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