vault_topic

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

Beyond the minimal readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral traits: progressive disclosure (returns summaries, not full content), the requirement to synthesize rather than concatenate, and the need to wait for user approval before writing. It also notes staleness detection on update.

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 with a brief summary, action-specific bullets, and a numbered workflow. It is moderately long but every section earns its place; there is no redundant repetition of schema details.

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 (3 actions, 10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the full lifecycle, parameter usage, workflow, and even return behavior for prepare ('returns summaries, not full content'). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by grouping parameters per action and specifying constraints such as 'cluster_id OR note_paths (pick one)' and 'topic_path (required) for update.' It maps all 10 schema parameters to their relevant actions, adding meaning far beyond raw 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 states the tool's purpose precisely: 'Manage topic lifecycle: prepare materials, create, or update.' It enumerates the three distinct actions (prepare, create, update) with clear verbs and resources, and the workflow distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_read.

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 an explicit, numbered workflow that Claude MUST follow, including when to call prepare, when deep-reading via vault_read is appropriate, and when to invoke create vs update. This goes beyond vague guidance and includes a mandatory confirmation step before writing.

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