vibe_read_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the data sources (all notes plus parsed gate state) and that it searches ALL of progress.md. It omits behavior when .vibe-wise is absent, whether the read is side-effect free, and what the return shape looks like.

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 compact sentences with the read scope front-loaded and the use case following. No filler, though the phrasing is dense with tool-internal jargon.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must do more than it does. It covers what is read and when, but leaves parameter meaning and return/error behavior unexplained for a tool an agent must invoke blind.

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% for the single projectPath parameter, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no guidance on what projectPath should be, whether it is optional, or what the default scope is.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads all learning notes (.vibe-wise/*.md) plus parsed gate state. The scope is concrete and identifiable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like vibe_status or vibe_checkpoint, which also plausibly surface state.

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?

Explicitly names two use cases (session restoration and compaction recovery) and a specific search behavior for pending decisions in progress.md. No exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it stops short of distinguishing from sibling state-read tools.

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