Vault Read

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the entire note body is returned (not a summary) and that invocation happens through the SPA bridge, but says nothing about behavior for missing/invalid paths, encoding, or size limits. An output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure is not required, keeping this at a solid but unremarkable 3.

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 lines, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The trailing audience note is slightly meta for a tool definition but is short and informative rather than wasteful.

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 single-parameter read with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is returned, who calls it, and through what mechanism. The only gap is sibling differentiation against `read`, which is minor given the explicit app-only scoping.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Relative note path'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no information about path resolution, vault root, extension handling, or what counts as 'relative', which is the one place added value would have mattered.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — read a note's full content — and narrows the scope to preview rendering. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `read` tool by declaring itself an app-internal endpoint rather than a general LLM-facing read, though it never explains the functional difference between the two.

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 states the caller context ('Called by the SPA browser view via `app.callServerTool()`') and explicitly excludes the LLM audience, which functions as a when-not-to-use signal. What is missing is routing guidance toward the likely alternative (`read`, `browse_vault`) for an agent that actually needs note content.

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