vault_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool is read-only (revisar/devuelve), lists the checks performed, and describes the output as a short report with problems and fix tools. It does not mention performance or rate limits, but covers key behavioral traits.

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 three sentences: first lists issues, second describes output, third states usage intent. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant information.

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, but the description explains the output format (short report with issues and fix tools). It covers all key aspects of the tool's behavior. Minor missing details (e.g., exact structure of report) but sufficient for a health check tool with simple parameters.

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 100% with parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters (detail, max_tags) beyond what the schema provides. That is acceptable but does not improve the score.

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 explicitly states the tool reviews the health of the entire vault, listing specific issues like broken wikilinks, orphan notes, tag problems, and notes missing 'See also'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that handle only individual issues (e.g., find_orphans, list_broken_links).

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 says 'Pensada para pasarla de vez en cuando' (designed to run periodically), implying a maintenance use case. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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