Workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists actions but does not explain side effects, required permissions, or what happens on transition/reset. The referral to an external document for usage guidance leaves significant gaps.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it packs multiple concepts (actions, flow, external reference) into one sentence, which may reduce clarity. It could be restructured for better readability.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, edge cases, or how to correctly use the transition parameter. The tool is too complex for such sparse documentation.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions actions but does not clarify the 'transition' parameter beyond its type. No detail on expected values or behavior, leaving the agent without needed context.

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 manages agent workflow state for a vault, listing specific actions (status, transition, history, reset). It provides a typical flow and references external guidance, making the purpose discernible and distinct from sibling tools like edit or 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 includes a typical flow (search → open_note → save → done) and suggests reading vault://overview for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like system or vault, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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