Browse Vault

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that the tool displays an interactive visual panel (MCP Apps) to the user, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not describe any additional behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise and well-structured: front-loaded with the purpose, followed by exclusions (what not to use for), and then when to call. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (opens a UI), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter hints, and has output schema present. No need to explain return values. It is fully complete for agent decision-making.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions optional note path and view types but does not add additional semantics beyond what is in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 opens a visual vault explorer UI for the user, using specific verbs and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it is not for reading content programmatically and lists alternative tools for 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 guidelines are explicit: only call when the user asks for the visual vault browser or explorer, and do NOT use for programmatic retrieval. Alternative tools (search, read, list_documents, get_context) are listed, providing clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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