Vault status

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral specificity: 'it inspects the working tree and reports, and writes nothing.' It also discloses the scope of the summary (projects, note counts, doctor result, stale capsules, git state), which goes beyond the bare annotation.

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 and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every clause earns its place: the list of summary contents, the read-only guarantee, and the pointer to 'doctor' are all high-value information delivered with zero filler.

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 having no output schema, the description enumerates exactly what kind of information the summary includes (projects, note counts, doctor result, stale capsules, git state), which is sufficient for an agent to set expectations. The tool has no parameters and is a read-only health summary, so no additional context is needed.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description naturally includes no parameter details because none exist, and it does not need to compensate for schema gaps since there are no parameters.

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 clearly identifies a specific resource ('vault') and a specific action ('one-shot health summary') with concrete contents: projects, note counts, doctor result, stale capsules, git state. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'doctor' by noting this is a summary rather than exhaustive validation findings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'Use `doctor` when you need every validation finding rather than the summary.' It also clarifies the tool is read-only and only inspects/reports, giving clear contextual guidance.

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