mind_vault

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does substantive work: it discloses that no secret value ever crosses the MCP channel, that the operation is terminal-only, and that the tool's output is guidance rather than a performed action. It leaves unstated the exact shape of the rendered instructions and error behavior for an invalid action, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler, and the most important constraint ('terminal-only by design', secrets never cross MCP) is front-loaded before the action enumeration and the replacement note. The final replacement sentence is slightly redundant with the action list but earns its place as routing guidance.

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 2-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool the description is close to sufficient: it explains the design rationale, the three actions, and the deprecation mapping. The one gap is that an agent is not told explicitly that the returned text is meant to be surfaced verbatim to the user rather than acted upon.

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 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the three action values as instruction variants (store/get/list), which largely duplicates the schema's enum descriptions and 'What instructions to render', and adds nothing new about `key` beyond the schema's interpolation note.

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 states a specific and unusual purpose: it does not touch secrets but renders instructions for running the equivalent `mgimind vault` command. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by naming mind_vault_store / _get / _list as replaced. It stops short of a 5 only because the replacement relationship is asserted rather than explained (the siblings still appear in the toolset, leaving a small ambiguity about their live status).

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?

It gives clear context for when to reach for this tool ('Vault is terminal-only by design', secrets never cross the MCP channel) and routes the agent away from the older per-operation siblings. It does not spell out exclusions or edge conditions (e.g., what to do if the user asks for a value directly), so it lands at clear-context-without-exclusions.

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