System

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals some behavioral traits (e.g., reindex is 'async rebuild', save_overview persists host-written overview) but does not disclose safety, permissions, or consequences of misuse. Some behaviors are hinted but not comprehensively.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists actions concisely. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 (multiple actions, some writing), the description lacks details on return values or side effects. No output schema exists, so it would benefit from mentioning what each action returns. It covers the main actions adequately but leaves gaps.

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 input schema covers 3 of 4 parameters with descriptions (75% coverage). The tool description adds meaning by explaining the action enum values (e.g., 'status' linked to indexing/backlinks health), which the schema does not describe. This compensates for the missing action description.

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 tool's purpose as 'System administration for this vault' and enumerates specific actions with brief explanations (e.g., 'status (indexing/backlinks/workflow health)'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like edit, vault, view, and workflow.

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 implies usage for system-level tasks via the listed actions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Usage is implied but not fully explicit.

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