vault_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: 'Returns no secrets', which reassures the agent this diagnostic is safe to call. It also reveals the tool doubles as a credential-release status check. It does not state auth requirements or cost, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose leading and the safety assurance trailing. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameterless diagnostic tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what it reports and its safety profile. It could go slightly further on what the response contains or what an agent should do with the answer, but it is essentially complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and a clearly scoped subject: why vault tools are unavailable and whether the credential has been released. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though there are no siblings to distinguish it from.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'unavailable in this session' signals the diagnostic context in which an agent would call it. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, but the implied trigger is reasonably clear.

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