Vault Context

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

The annotations already declare that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no further explanation. The description adds the non-obvious detail that this is a UI-internal call path rather than a general-purpose endpoint, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It does not say whether the result is cached, whether it is scoped to the current editor state, or what happens if the note is not open.

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 three short lines, and the core action is front-loaded, so there is no wasted prose. The closing note that the tool is not visible to the LLM is slightly meta and self-referential, since this text is being read by an agent, but it is short and it carries real information.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter and an output schema that defines the returned NoteContext, so return values need not be described. The annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers the unusual calling context. The main gap is that an agent has no basis to know how this differs from the context siblings, which is the one thing a complete definition here should settle.

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%, and the single path parameter is documented with an example format of 'Journal/2024-01-15.md'. The description adds nothing about path resolution, whether a leading slash is accepted, or behavior on a missing note. With one fully documented parameter, 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 verb and resource: 'Return the full NoteContext for a note', so the action is clear. However, 'NoteContext' is an internal term that is never defined, and the description does not distinguish this tool from sibling context tools such as show_context, get_context, or read. The parenthetical '(app-only)' narrows it, but only by saying it is not for the caller.

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 does state a usage condition, namely that the SPA context card view calls it via app.callServerTool(), and that it is not for the LLM. This amounts to implicit guidance for an agent to avoid the tool. It never names alternatives such as get_context or show_context, and it gives no criteria for choosing between them.

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