Vault Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful invocation context ('SPA context card view', 'app.callServerTool()') and notes that it returns the 'full NoteContext,' but it does not go beyond that. With strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by invocation context and visibility restriction. There is no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, who calls it, and that it is not visible to the LLM. Nothing needed to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%: the path parameter already has a clear description and example. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Return the full NoteContext for a note.' It further clarifies the tool is 'app-only' and 'Not visible to the LLM,' which distinguishes it from LLM-facing context tools like get_context or show_context. This is not a tautology of the title.

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?

It clearly specifies when this tool is used: 'Called by the SPA context card view via app.callServerTool().' The 'Not visible to the LLM' line provides a when-not to use it, though no alternative tool is explicitly named. The invocation context is unambiguous.

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