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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the exact underlying command (`uv tool install --upgrade mistral-vibe`), which reveals the real side effect of install/update. It stops short of describing permission, network, or failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the tool is already current), so it is informative but not exhaustive.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the resource ('Operational helper for the Vibe CLI') and then lists the actions with the command quoted inline. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical/nesting makes it slightly denser than a plain action list.

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 one-parameter tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the three modes, and the implementation command, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the return shape of `status` and of install/update, which is only gestured at with '(installed? version)'.

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 `action` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including enum values and their meaning, so the baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical '(installed? version)' adds a small hint about what the status action reports, but otherwise restates the schema's enum descriptions almost verbatim.

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 concrete resource (the Vibe CLI installation) and enumerates the three operations it supports: status, install, and update. That is specific enough to separate it from vibe_run and vibe_resume, which operate on sessions rather than the CLI install, though the description never explicitly states that distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this when you need to check or change whether the Vibe CLI is installed', but the description never says when to prefer this over the sibling tools or what prerequisite conditions apply (e.g., whether uv must already be present).

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only explains the session-selection logic. It does not describe what continuing a session actually does, whether it executes tools or mutates files, how approval/trust settings affect behavior, or what the agent should expect from the many execution-related parameters.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the session-selection rule. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition.

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 16-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential resume-versus-continue routing. However, it leaves out behavioral context around execution, approvals, worktrees, and side effects, so it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 16 parameters. The description mainly restates session_id and continue behavior already present in the schema and adds no additional meaning for parameters such as agent, trust, worktree, max_price, or auto_approve.

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 and resource: 'Continue a previous Vibe session.' It is clear enough to distinguish resuming from starting a new run, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling tools vibe_run or vibe_manage.

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 clear usage guidance for the key choice: provide session_id to resume a specific session, or use continue:true (the default without session_id) to continue the last session for the directory. It does not state when not to use this tool or explicitly route to sibling alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (parsed JSON, session id, exit classification, cost/turn summary), which is useful, but it never states that this launches an autonomous agent that can read and modify files in the project directory, that it is long-running, or what approval semantics apply by default.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return shape. No filler or repetition.

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 14-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return values but omits side effects, default approval behavior (auto_approve defaults false, agent profiles), and lifecycle concerns like time limits. An agent could call it without knowing it may mutate the working tree.

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 100% and each parameter is documented inline with its CLI flag, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies; the description mentions only prompt and project directory, both already covered.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Start a new Mistral Vibe coding-agent session,' plus the required prompt and project directory. It distinguishes itself from vibe_resume only implicitly via 'new,' rather than naming the sibling or its boundary.

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?

'Start a new ... session' implies this is for beginning rather than continuing work, which hints at when to use it versus vibe_resume, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (git repo, auth, trust), and no routing to vibe_manage.

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