Open Workspace Vault

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

Annotations already include idempotentHint=true, and the description adds specific behavioral detail: if a vault is already linked to the directory path, it returns it; otherwise it creates a new vault and records workspace_path for future calls. This goes beyond the generic idempotency annotation. No contradiction with 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 well-structured with three short paragraphs, each serving a purpose: core action, behavior, and rationale. It is not overly verbose, though the third paragraph could be trimmed. Every sentence adds value, making it concise for the information conveyed.

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 the core workflow, idempotent behavior, and use case, which is sufficient for the tool's complexity. An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it lacks edge-case handling details (e.g., invalid paths).

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. It explains workspace_path's role implicitly ('vault scoped to a workspace directory', 'records the workspace_path'), but the optional 'description' parameter is not mentioned at all. The description adds meaning for the key parameter but does not fully cover the second parameter.

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 purpose: 'Open (or create) a vault scoped to a workspace directory.' This is specific, with a clear verb (open/create), resource (vault), and scope (workspace directory). It also distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with named vaults, noting that named vaults remain available for explicit management.

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 implies when to use this tool: for workspace-scoped vaults with lower friction, vs. named vaults via vault_create. It explicitly states 'This mirrors how MemClaw scopes memory to workspaces -- lower friction than naming vaults manually' and mentions named vaults remain available. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of vault_create', so it's clear but slightly indirect.

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