Vault info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a read-safe operation, and the description reinforces this by framing the tool as a confirmation/read rather than a mutation. It adds useful context about what the tool reports (root path and note count) and how to interpret it as a readiness check, going beyond the raw annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler or repetition. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides a clear usage directive, making the description maximally efficient.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only vault status tool, the description covers what it returns and when to call it. The sibling list confirms all other tools operate on notes, so there is no missing context or potential confusion.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The baseline of 4 applies here; the description appropriately says nothing about parameters because none exist.

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 'Report' as a specific verb with 'vault root path' and 'number of markdown notes' as the resource, making the tool's function immediately clear. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on individual notes rather than the vault itself.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use this first to confirm the vault is mounted and readable,' giving a clear when-to-use directive. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but since no sibling tool serves the same vault-level purpose, this is sufficient and not misleading.

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