Onboard LoreDocs

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), the description discloses that existing data is never modified, details what gets created, and notes the reference doc is queryable. This provides richer behavioral context than the annotations alone.

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 well-structured: a lead sentence, call guidance, a bulleted list of creations, and parameter explanations. The additional tag/priority information is contextual and earns its place by explaining the created setup.

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 covers usage, behavior, parameters, and created artifacts comprehensively. The only minor gap is that all parameters are optional in the schema, but the description does not clarify what happens when called with no arguments (e.g., whether only the Config vault is created).

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 0%, but the description explains each parameter (name, domains, agents, tag_style) with examples and default values. It fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Set up or update your LoreDocs workspace configuration' and enumerates the concrete artifacts created (Config vault, per-domain vaults, per-agent report vaults). This distinguishes it from sibling vault_* tools, which handle individual documents or vault operations.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call once after installing LoreDocs to get a recommended vault structure. Call again to add new domains or agents -- existing data is never modified.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it and reassures about non-destructive behavior.

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