Get Document Suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond those annotations by explaining what 'needs attention' means (no notes, no tags, no links) and that vault scoping is optional. This helps the agent understand the tool's selection logic without contradicting 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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by two concise sentences that elaborate on criteria and usage. It contains no redundant or extraneous information, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional params, output schema present, annotations provided), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and vault scoping. The 'limit' behavior is not described, but the default in the schema and the output schema itself reduce the need for further detail. Overall, it is a well-rounded and useful description.

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 the 'vault' parameter ('Optionally scope to a single vault') but does not explain 'limit', which is only defined by its default value in the schema. While 'limit' is reasonably self-explanatory, the description does not fully cover parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get suggestions') and resource ('documents'), and clearly defines the criteria (undocumented, unorganized, isolated) that distinguish it from sibling tools like vault_search. It immediately conveys what the tool does and what makes it unique.

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 states when to use the tool: 'to guide housekeeping work or to discover documents that haven't been connected to the broader graph.' This provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria. It is specific enough to guide selection among siblings.

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