Vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions file operations on .md files but doesn't disclose critical traits like permissions needed, whether deletions are permanent, rate limits, or error handling. 'Manage' implies both read and write operations, but specifics are vague, leaving significant gaps for a tool with multiple actions including destructive ones like 'delete'.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds context. Both sentences earn their place by defining scope and file type. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for actions) and slightly verbose in listing all actions explicitly.

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 complexity (6 parameters, multiple actions including mutations, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, prerequisites (e.g., vault setup), and how actions differ behaviorally. For a multi-action tool with potential destructive operations, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical usage aspects.

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 33% (only 'templatePath' and 'variables' have descriptions), so the description must compensate but adds little beyond the schema. It implies 'path' and 'directory' relate to .md files but doesn't explain their roles or interactions. The description lists actions matching the enum, but no extra semantics for parameters like 'content'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema coverage is low, but the description doesn't fully bridge the gap.

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: 'Manage vault notes: list, read, create, update, delete, stat, create_from_template.' It specifies the verb ('manage') and resource ('vault notes') with concrete actions. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit' or 'view' which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance: 'Operates on .md files in the markdown vault.' This gives some context but lacks explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'edit' or 'view'), or exclusions. No guidance on which action to choose for specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from the action enum.

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