Export Vault Manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the returned contents (tag frequency index, category counts, link count), which is useful. However, it does not disclose any potential pitfalls, prerequisites (e.g., session token), or edge cases, so it adds only moderate behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: one opening purpose sentence, a bullet-like list of returned content, and two short sentences on format selection. Every sentence adds value and the most critical information is front-loaded. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 is fairly complete for a read-only export tool: it covers purpose, return contents, and format options. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return value structures. It lacks differentiation from sibling tools and any caveats, but given the output schema and annotations, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly in most situations.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does address the 'format' parameter by explaining json vs markdown outputs. The 'vault' parameter is not explained, but it is self-evident from the tool name and the phrase 'a vault's contents.' Thus, the description partially compensates but leaves the vault parameter underspecified, justifying a mid-range 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Export a complete manifest of a vault's contents' and enumerates the returned data (vault metadata, document list, tag frequency index, etc.). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vault_export, which could be similar, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 format guidance ('Use the json format for machine-readable output. Use the markdown format for human-readable summaries.') but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as vault_export or vault_list_docs. There is no explicit when/when-not or mention of alternative tools, making this a weak dimension.

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