vault_analyze

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is present, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it mentions caching behavior for clusters ('Cached if graph unchanged') and notes that rebuild_graph returns node/edge counts. This is transparent without contradicting the read-only hint.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear opening line and a bulleted list of actions. Each line provides actionable information without redundancy, making efficient use of space.

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?

The description covers all actions and their parameters, which is helpful given the multiple sub-operations. However, it lacks explicit return value descriptions for clusters, connections, and orphans (though action names and phrasing imply outputs). This is a minor gap, especially since no output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the role of each parameter within each action (e.g., path is required for connections, depth defaults to 1, limit defaults to 50, offset for pagination). This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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 analyzes the vault knowledge graph and enumerates four specific analysis operations (rebuild_graph, clusters, connections, orphans). This specific verb+resource focus distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_capture or vault_read, which serve different purposes.

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?

Usage context is implied by the action list and the tool's name, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The sibling names hint at other workflows, but no direct guidance is provided.

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