vault_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says what is returned but not that this is a read-only retrieval, what happens for a missing/ambiguous note, or whether the identifier is a path, title, or ID. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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 short fragments, zero waste, with the primary outcome front-loaded before the usage hint. It borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, but the structure is sound.

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 simple shape (one required param, no output schema, no annotations) is partly covered: return content ('full markdown') is stated. However, identifier format and failure behavior for a missing note are unaddressed, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 single 'note' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only restates that it targets 'one note'. It never clarifies the identifier format (name vs. path vs. slug) or whether it is case-sensitive, leaving the only parameter effectively undocumented.

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 resource and scope: 'Full markdown of one note.' The word 'Full' implicitly contrasts with vault_skeleton (outline) and vault_search (matching), so an agent can roughly separate it from siblings, though no sibling is named. Not a tautology.

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?

'Use after pack/search to drill in' gives an explicit ordering/context: call this to expand a note surfaced by those tools. It names alternatives and a triggering condition, but offers no when-not guidance or mention of what to use if the note isn't found.

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