vault_read

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint to false, and the description adds a side effect ('Strengthens the file's Hebbian score'). Contradiction is false. The description also discloses that it parses frontmatter and links, providing useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 with no extraneous information. First sentence covers action and returns; second sentence adds a key side effect. Every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description adequately covers return elements (frontmatter, links) and the side effect (Hebbian score). It could mention that it reads a single note (not bulk), but that is implied. Overall, it is complete for a read tool with side effects.

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 only parameter 'path' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description clarifies it is a 'relative path,' adding meaningful semantic guidance. However, it does not explain the base directory or format.

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 action ('Read a single vault note by relative path') and the resource ('vault note'). It also specifies return content (frontmatter, links) and distinguishes from sibling tools like vault_search.

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 implies usage for reading a specific note by path but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vault_search for searching, vault_neighbors for links). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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