Vault git status and conflict-aware sync

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds non-obvious behaviors: 'Never auto-resolves conflicts', 'Never uses --force', 'Never invokes a shell', and 'Conflicts are surfaced as structured data'. It also discloses the environment requirement via TDMCP_VAULT_PATH.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Read-mostly git wrapper'), and every phrase earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description conveys essential outcomes: status shows changes, pull reports conflicts without auto-resolution, push reports rejections. It does not detail return structures, but the comprehensive schema action descriptions and the description's high-level guarantees suffice for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by emphasizing the vault_path argument and explaining that pull is fetch/fast-forward-only, which complements the schema's action details. This surpasses the baseline.

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 it is a 'Read-mostly git wrapper for the configured Obsidian vault directory' and enumerates specific actions: status, pull, push, log. This distinguishes it from sibling vault tools (e.g., merge_vaults, sync_presets_vault) which are not git wrappers.

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 defines when to use the tool (for git operations on the vault) and provides explicit constraints: never auto-resolves conflicts, never uses --force, never invokes a shell. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the unique scope is clear.

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