vault_query

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool supports fuzzy match by entity and list_all for all beliefs. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive, which is implied but not confirmed.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and usage guidance, followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, and it is concise without being terse.

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?

The description explains the two modes of operation and mentions that list_all returns frontmatter summary. Given the presence of an output schema, it does not need to detail return values further, making it sufficiently complete for a simple query tool.

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 description compensates for 0% schema description coverage by explaining both parameters: 'entity' is a fuzzy match and 'list_all' returns all beliefs with frontmatter summary. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'query' and resource 'CogOps Knowledge Vault for existing beliefs', with a specific usage context: 'check what the system already knows before compiling new understanding'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_write_belief or vault_search.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('before compiling new understanding'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined 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.