list_vaults

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It reveals the tool lists vaults with status, and states deprecation status and future removal. However, it does not explicitly mention whether the operation is read-only or safe, or if any authentication is needed.

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: the first sentence states purpose and output, the second adds deprecation context. Every word earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (vaults with status including note count and last indexed run). Deprecation information adds useful lifecycle context. Could mention scope (e.g., all vaults accessible to the user) but is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter info, but the baseline score for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 lists vaults with status details (note count, last indexed run), distinguishing it from sibling list tools by specifying the resource 'vaults' and the output fields. The action verb 'List' 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?

Explicitly marks the tool as DEPRECATED and directs agents to use the MCP Resource 'vault-memory://vaults' instead. It also clarifies the tool remains callable through v2.x and removal is scheduled for v3.0.0, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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