embeddings.index_vault

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (destructive hint false). The description adds that embeddings are 'optional' and stored locally, which is useful but does not detail potential side effects like overwriting existing indexes or performance considerations.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but may be too brief. It front-loads the main action but could be restructured to include parameter hints without increasing length significantly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema, indexing behavior), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the indexed embeddings are used, error conditions, or the effect of 'forceReindex'. The output schema exists but the description adds no context about return values.

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 0%; the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (glob, maxNotes, chunkSize, chunkOverlap, forceReindex). The agent must infer their meaning solely from names and schema types, which is insufficient.

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 states the verb 'Chunk' and 'persist', the resource 'vault notes', and the destination 'local SQLite index'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on reading, searching, or graph operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'context.retrieve' or 'vault.search_notes'. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., vault must exist) or situations where it should be avoided.

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