Browse Vault

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that this launches an interactive surface for a human and yields no readable content — a critical disclosure that prevents an agent from expecting data back. It stops short of saying what happens in a non-interactive/headless client, which is the remaining behavioral unknown.

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?

Four short lines total: purpose first, then the routing exclusions. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation — and the description usefully clarifies that there is nothing to read anyway. The one gap is environmental: an agent in a non-interactive session gets no warning that an interactive explorer may not be renderable or useful there.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already document their defaults and the path-dependent default resolution for `view` (context with a path, browse without). The description mirrors the three view modes in prose but adds no format, path syntax, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Open an interactive vault explorer') and enumerates the three modes (file tree, link graph, note relationships) that map to the `view` parameter. It is clearly distinguished from the read/search siblings by the explicit 'returns nothing to read' clause, so an agent can tell it apart from vault_graph_neighborhood or get_backlinks without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use (user wants to visually look through the vault) and an explicit when-not-to-use with named alternatives: 'use search, read, list_documents or get_context for content.' The routing decision between this tool and content tools is fully resolved in the text.

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