Vault Health

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds beyond that: the guaranteed server identity block, the all-projects default, and the parameter-gated behavior for drift detection and analytics. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the one-line purpose is followed by the guaranteed output block and then a clean list of conditional behaviors. Every sentence carries necessary information without 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?

Given the fully documented schema, the presence of an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, how parameters change the response, and what the default behavior is. Nothing essential is missing for safe, correct invocation.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented with defaults and meaning in the input schema. The description reinforces the conditional relationships between parameters and behavior, but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Return vault health metrics, validation, and optional usage analytics.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from content-oriented siblings like vault_list, vault_query, and vault_ask by focusing on health, drift detection, and runtime/usage metadata.

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 spells out the main behavioral modes: no parameters means a health summary for all projects, checks trigger drift detection, and include_usage/include_runtime append specific blocks. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the conditional usage is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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