get_vault

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the context that the vault must be 'registered' and that it fetches metadata, but does not disclose what happens on missing vaults or what fields the metadata includes. This is acceptable for a simple getter but adds limited extra behavioral context.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word is meaningful: 'Get metadata for one registered vault by name.' No filler or redundancy.

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: one parameter, read-only, clear purpose. The description covers the essential behavior even though there is no output schema. While the term 'metadata' is somewhat vague, it adequately conveys the purpose for a straightforward getter. The annotations and simple schema contribute to the tool's overall completeness.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one required string parameter 'vault'. The description clarifies that this is a name ('by name'), which adds meaning beyond the raw parameter name. However, it doesn't provide details on formatting, case sensitivity, or exact name matching. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema description.

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 'Get metadata for one registered vault by name.' It specifies a precise verb (get), resource (vault metadata), and scope (one registered vault by name). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_vaults (which lists all) and register_vault (which registers).

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: when you need metadata for a single vault by name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the word 'one' versus 'list' in siblings provides implicit usage context. No explicit 'use instead of...' guidance is given.

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