read_vault

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses automatic path resolution, that a commit hash returns the historical version even for changed or deleted nodes, and the non-obvious "~1" suffix convention for retrieving a pre-deletion version. Gaps remain on error behavior for missing or unresolvable paths and on any vault_root prerequisite.

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 core action and preferred input form are front-loaded in the first three lines, then the optional commit behavior is layered beneath. Every clause adds usable detail — no restatement of the name and no 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?

Return values need not be described because an output schema exists, and the tricky historical-read semantics are fully covered. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior — what happens for a nonexistent path, an ambiguous UID, or a commit that predates the file.

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 supply all parameter meaning and it does: path is defined as an 8-character hex UID, an absolute path, or a vault_root-relative path, with a concrete example of each. commit is defined as a hash from history_vault plus the special "~1" form for deleted nodes, information present nowhere in the schema.

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+resource ("Read a vault file") and immediately enumerates the three accepted path forms, so the agent knows exactly what the tool consumes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near siblings like read_meta, history_vault, or read_skill, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete preference rule ("Prefer passing the UID when you have it — the path will be resolved automatically") and points at history_vault as the source of the commit hash, which is real cross-tool routing guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_meta or search_vault.

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