Vault Read

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: the intended caller (SPA browser view), invocation mechanism (app.callServerTool()), and visibility restriction (not visible to the LLM).

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, invocation context, and visibility. The core purpose is front-loaded with no wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with strong annotations and an output schema present, the description supplies the necessary invocation context and access restriction. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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 the single parameter 'path' is already described as 'Relative note path.' The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond confirming the resource is a note.

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 action and resource: 'Read a note's full content for preview rendering'. It also clearly scopes the tool as 'app-only', distinguishing it from LLM-facing siblings like 'read' and 'browse_vault'.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: called by the SPA browser view via app.callServerTool(), and explicitly says it is not visible to the LLM. It stops short of naming a specific alternative ('use read instead'), but the exclusion is clear.

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