vault_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. Description adds critical non-obvious behavior: 'the secret VALUE is never returned or shown to you, and no tool on this server returns it'. This system-wide guarantee goes well beyond annotations and prevents false expectations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('List the secrets'), then immediately specifying critical constraints and usage. Every clause adds information; no filler or repetition.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool without output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return content (alias and purpose), non-return (value), account scoping, and a usage example. No meaningful gaps remain.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing to document. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description adds value by explaining the implicit scope of the list (your own account) and the output shape (alias and purpose), which compensates for lack of parameter meaning.

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?

Description clearly states 'List the secrets stored in your Mnemoverse Vault' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling memory_* tools by namespace (Vault vs memory). Adds clarity that it returns only aliases and purposes, not values, which fully defines the tool's scope.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: 'Use this to check WHICH secrets the user has stored and under what alias (e.g. the user says 'do I have a GitHub token saved?')'. It also clarifies scope ('Only YOUR account's secrets are listed'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mention, but no direct sibling exists, so clear context is sufficient.

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