vault_get

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that secret values are never returned and that the tool is metadata-only. It also adds context about how Anthropic handles secrets. However, it does not cover error behavior (e.g., vault not found) or authorization requirements.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main action, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundant or filler content, maintaining a high signal-to-noise ratio.

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 existence of an output schema (handling return values), the description covers purpose, parameter format, behavioral constraints, and a clear use case. For a simple get-by-id tool, this is comprehensive and leaves little ambiguity.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'vault_id' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds that the id follows the 'vlt_*' pattern, which provides some semantic guidance beyond the schema's 'string' type. However, it does not elaborate on how to obtain the id or its format constraints.

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 that the tool gets one vault's details by vault_id, specifies the returned fields (display name, metadata, timestamps), and distinguishes itself from vault_list by focusing on a single vault. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 a clear use case: 'to confirm the vault is the one you want before attaching it.' It implies when to use this tool (when you need to verify a vault) and indirectly suggests that vault_list is the sibling for listing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or give alternative tools beyond context.

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