Validate the vault

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

Even though annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it never repairs, it returns every finding, and it defines the two kinds of findings (error vs warning). This goes well beyond the annotation and gives the agent a clear model of what to expect.

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 packed with essential information, front-loaded with the verb and subject. No fluff—each clause adds value, including the error/warning distinction and the repair pointer.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully describes what the tool returns (all findings) and how to interpret them (error vs warning). Given the zero-parameter simplicity and strong annotations, this is complete for an agent to use 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is little to explain. The description implicitly signals that no configuration is needed by saying 'Run the full structural validation' without mentioning any inputs, matching the schema's 100% coverage baseline.

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 specific action ('Run the full structural validation') and enumerates concrete finding categories (unresolved links, missing frontmatter, etc.), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from repair by explicitly separating reporting from the terminal repair command.

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 description clearly states this tool validates and reports, and explicitly directs repair to the terminal command `vulcanus doctor --repair`, providing an important when-not-to-use boundary. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like vault_status, but the validation scope is well-defined.

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