Vault health check

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and the diagnostic framing ('lint') does usefully imply a read-only, non-mutating operation. However, it says nothing about the output form, whether findings are severity-ranked, whether thresholds for 'stale' or 'overdue' are configurable, or how large/costly the scan is. It adds some behavioral signal but leaves the agent guessing about the response.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the capability list is front-loaded before the usage hint. The six-item colon list is dense and slightly scannable rather than prose, but every item carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is checked but not what comes back or in what structure. Enumerating the six check categories is the right core, yet an agent still cannot anticipate the result shape, which is the main remaining gap.

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 schema is an empty object with no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the enumerated checks are the only 'input' semantics an agent needs, and they are provided.

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 concrete verb ('lint') against a concrete resource (the vault) and enumerates the six specific classes of problems it detects: broken wikilinks, duplicate titles, stale active projects, overdue tasks, orphan notes, inbox pileup. That enumeration makes it unmistakably distinct from every sibling, all of which read, list or mutate individual notes/tasks/projects rather than diagnosing vault-wide integrity.

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?

'Use during reviews' gives a trigger context, which is more than most definitions offer, but it never states when NOT to use it or names any alternative. Since no sibling performs a comparable diagnostic, the routing risk is low, but the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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