vault_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discharges most of it by disclosing the substantive contents of the response — tested status, project count, recorded disagreements, change blast radius, and acknowledged unknowns. It does not explicitly state that this is a pure read operation or note any cost/format constraints, but nothing is contradicted.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and ending with the usage condition. The first sentence is a dense list but every item earns its place by signaling a distinct return dimension.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return content — and it does, enumerating the components of the epistemic state. For a single-item lookup this is nearly sufficient; only response format or aggregation behavior is left unspecified.

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 ('note path, basename, or distinctive substring'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no further lookup-syntax guidance, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (one rule or note) and enumerates the dimensions of its 'epistemic state' — grounding, testing, disagreements, blast radius, unknowns. That is far more informative than a generic getter, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like vault_impact (blast radius) or vault_get (generic retrieval).

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 gives two explicit triggers: 'Use before relying on a rule, and before changing one.' That is clear context for invocation. It stops short of naming an alternative or an exclusion (e.g., when vault_impact or vault_gaps is the better choice), so it sits just below the top band.

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