hive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the project structure (e.g., '_meta' maps to '00_meta/'), parameter precedence rules, and the metadata inclusion behavior, which enhances transparency without contradiction.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-like Args section. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses concise parameter explanations that directly aid tool invocation.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all parameters thoroughly, explains usage context, and provides behavioral details. The output schema handles return values, so no need to describe them here.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in detail. It clarifies semantic meanings: project as 'slug (directory under 10_projects/)' with '_meta' special case, section as 'shortcut name' with options, path overriding section, max_lines behavior ('0 = unlimited'), and include_metadata effect ('Prepend a structured metadata line').

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Read content') and resource ('from a vault project'), distinguishing it from siblings like vault_write (write), vault_patch (modify), and vault_list (list). It explicitly contrasts with 'direct filesystem access' to establish its role.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'use instead of direct filesystem access' specifies when to use this tool, and the Args section clarifies parameter interactions (e.g., 'path overrides section'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like vault_write for writes and vault_list for listing.

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