mcp-markdown-vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the actions available, it doesn't describe what happens when each action is invoked, whether operations are destructive, what permissions might be required, or what the expected outcomes are. The mention of 'Petri net state machine' adds some context but doesn't explain behavioral implications.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that cover the tool's purpose and technical basis. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main functionality, though the second sentence about Petri nets could be more directly connected to usage guidance.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the 'transition' parameter does, how actions differ in behavior, what the tool returns, or how it interacts with the workflow system. The mention of Petri nets adds some technical context but doesn't provide practical completeness.

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 description doesn't explicitly discuss parameters, but the action parameter's semantics are somewhat implied through the listed actions (status, transition, history, reset). With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description provides minimal additional meaning beyond what can be inferred from the enum values. The baseline is appropriate given the lack of parameter details in the 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 managing agent workflow state with specific actions (check status, fire transitions, view history, reset) and mentions it's based on a Petri net state machine. This provides a specific verb+resource combination, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (edit, system, vault, view).

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 lists the available actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or when to choose between different actions. There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context for selecting specific actions like 'transition' versus 'reset'.

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