Get Vault Overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope ('top-level folders and file counts') and implies a read-only operation via 'get'. However, it doesn't describe the exact return format, potential performance implications, or whether it aggregates across nested folders. It adds basic behavior but lacks depth.

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 two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality, and the second provides a clean use case. There is zero fluff or redundancy.

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 that the tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), the description covers what it does and why to use it. It explains the return contents (folders and counts) adequately. It doesn't need to explain return formats or side effects. Slightly lacking because it could mention that it's a read-only aggregation, but overall complete for its complexity.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter documentation needed, and the description appropriately says what the tool returns instead. It adds no param semantics because there are none, but this is not a 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a high-level overview of the vault structure — top-level folders and file counts.' It names a specific verb ('get') and a specific resource ('vault structure'), with concrete outputs (folders and file counts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_folders or search_notes.

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 provides a usage context: 'Use this to understand the current state of the knowledge base.' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_folders or mention when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit exclusions.

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