get_vault_conventions_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It identifies the source file and notes that data.conventions is raw Markdown, which gives useful return-context. However, it does not state read-only behavior explicitly, what happens if the file is missing, or any access requirements. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and source, then a precise note about the return field. Every word earns its place.

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 and an output schema exists, so return values need not be fully spelled out. Still, the complete absence of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves the definition only partially complete for an agent encountering it fresh.

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 0% and the description never explains the 'vault' parameter. The only hint is 'the vault's', but there is no detail on format, default behavior, or how it relates to vault identifiers. The description does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 ('Return') and resource ('the vault's AI instructions / conventions from _AI_INSTRUCTIONS.md'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools, none of which focus on vault-level conventions.

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?

The purpose implies when to use the tool—whenever an agent needs the vault's AI conventions—but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. This is implied usage rather than stated selection criteria.

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