read_meta

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 an unusual amount: it discloses that config is answerable with no vault configured and therefore explains why the other tools are refusing, and it flags read-before-write prerequisites for several files. It stops short of stating failure behavior for an unknown file value or whether the read is unconditional, so the safety profile is strong but not complete.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the per-value notes are information-dense rather than padded. The cost is mild redundancy: the bare file enumeration up front duplicates the keys of the annotated list below it, and the trailing-pipe formatting adds noise.

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?

A one-parameter selector with an output schema in place needs exactly the per-value routing table provided here; return formatting is rightly omitted. Nothing required to choose the correct file value is missing.

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% and the single `file` parameter has no enum, so the description must supply all value semantics — and it does, enumerating all fifteen valid values with what each contains and when to read it. This is the rare case where the description fully absorbs a schema gap.

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?

"Read a vault meta file" is a specific verb+resource, and the enumerated file keys make the scope concrete rather than generic. It implicitly separates meta reads from node reads (e.g. "for structure, read ontology instead") but never names read_vault as the counterpart for node content, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Nearly every entry states a condition for use: "Read with type-dictionary when classifying", "Read before writing a node of a user-defined type", "Read before constructing any has_asset entry". It also gives an explicit when-not with an alternative ("when the user asks how the ontology works rather than what a specific type requires — for structure, read ontology instead"), which is exactly the routing an agent needs.

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