mcp-markdown-vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it lists action types, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether operations are read-only (implied by 'view' but not explicit), performance characteristics, error handling, or data formats returned. For a tool with 8 complex actions and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a comprehensive but efficient bullet-style list of actions. Every sentence earns its place by clearly explaining distinct functionality without redundancy or fluff. The structure makes it easy to scan and understand.

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?

For a complex tool with 8 actions, 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good action coverage but lacks critical behavioral context. It explains WHAT each action does but not HOW they behave, what they return, or important constraints. This is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for reliable agent usage.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage (only 'directory' and 'items' have descriptions), the description compensates well by explaining what each action does, which implicitly clarifies parameter usage. For example, understanding that 'bulk_read' uses the 'items' array or that different searches use 'query' differently adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as 'View and search notes' and provides a comprehensive list of 8 specific actions with clear distinctions (e.g., search vs global_search vs semantic_search). This goes beyond the generic name/title and clearly differentiates what this tool does compared to siblings like 'edit' or 'vault'.

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 clear context about when to use different actions (e.g., 'search' for single-file retrieval, 'global_search' for cross-vault keyword search, 'semantic_search' for hybrid search). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit' for modifications or provide explicit sibling comparisons.

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