Map Vault

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It partially compensates by implying a read-only, informational operation (a 'map' of the vault) and describing the returned structure, but it never explicitly states read-only safety, side effects, or cost, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, appropriately sized for a no-argument tool. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a full statement, but nothing needs to be trimmed.

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?

Complexity is low, there are no parameters, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. What is missing is usage context (when to call it) and any read-only reassurance, which are the only remaining gaps.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is also 100%.

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 names a specific resource (the vault's section tree) and its payload (numbered sections with note counts), which is more informative than the bare title. It lacks an explicit verb, and it never contrasts itself with siblings like search or read_note, so an agent gets the 'what' but not the differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus search, read_note, or reindex, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that it is an orienting/overview call purely from the word 'map'.

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