Get Vault Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns a document manifest, which is useful output context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, so it only modestly enhances transparency.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and includes a helpful input note, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the core purpose but omits response_format semantics and explicit usage context, which are relevant to fully leveraging the 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 adds meaning to the 'vault' parameter by clarifying it accepts either an ID or name, which is helpful for a schema with 0% coverage. However, it completely ignores the 'response_format' parameter, leaving a gap. The partial compensation earns a middle 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 states a clear action ('Get detailed information about a vault') and specific resource ('vault') with a concrete output detail ('full document manifest'). This distinguishes it from mutation tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar read tools like vault_list_docs or vault_export_manifest.

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 only mentions input flexibility ('Accepts either a vault ID or vault name') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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