Check Vault connection and pending saves

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further by disclosing that recovery paths hold local data needing explicit review and that pending content and other connections' Vault identities are withheld. These are meaningful disclosure boundaries beyond the structured safety hints.

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?

Front-loaded with what is shown, followed by when-to-use and then what it does not do — a sensible ordering. The first sentence is a dense enumeration and the negatives are somewhat repetitive, costing a bit of tightness but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating exactly what the caller receives (Vault selection, list with names/IDs, permissions, config_file path, pending IDs) plus the negative space of what is not returned. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics default to the 4 baseline. The description correctly implies a parameterless 'just report state' call and adds nothing misleading about inputs.

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 opens with a concrete verb-plus-resource inventory: selected Vault, all accessible Vaults with name/ID, permissions, config_file path, and pending/blocked save IDs. That scope is unmistakably different from the memory CRUD siblings (save/recall/list/update/delete), so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 states a clear use case — 'find a Vault ID before writing the project file at the user's request' — and explicitly rules out import, retarget, delete, and resubmit actions. It does not name a specific alternative sibling, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not/alternatives bar for a 5.

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