vault_list

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds details on how arguments affect behavior (listing projects vs files, using subdirectories and patterns). It does not contradict annotations and provides good behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 very concise at 4 lines, front-loads the main purpose, and includes only essential details with no redundant content. Every sentence provides useful information.

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 complexity (4 optional params, nested structure), the description covers the main usage patterns. It explains the two modes and parameter roles. The output schema exists to document return values, so the description is sufficiently complete for a list tool.

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%, but the description adds significant value: explains the alias 'subpath' for 'path', notes that 'scope' is not a parameter here, and clarifies default behaviors for empty strings. This is excellent parameter-level guidance.

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 the tool lists vault projects or files within a project. It distinguishes two modes based on arguments, and the verb 'list' combined with resource 'vault projects/files' is specific. It differentiates from sibling tools like vault_search and vault_write.

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 explicitly explains when to use with or without the 'project' argument. It does not directly compare with sibling tools, but the usage context is clear and provides actionable guidance.

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