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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral trait beyond the annotations: that omitting topic yields a topic index. It discloses nothing about rate limits, output format, or failure modes.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the tool's identity followed by the parameter instruction; no filler. It is arguably too terse for a help tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With only one optional parameter and an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Still, the definition gives the agent no sense of what topics are available or what the manual covers, leaving discovery entirely to trial calls.

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 parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It does explain the optionality semantics — omitting topic returns the topic index, implying topic selects a specific entry — but it never says what valid topic values look like or how to discover them, so the compensation is partial.

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 names a specific resource (a usage manual / help documentation), which is clearly distinct from the vault-operation siblings like vault_read and vault_write. It stops short of stating an explicit verb or the scope of the manual, but an agent can identify it as the documentation tool without ambiguity.

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 only implied — the agent is expected to infer that this is the tool to call when it needs documentation. The clause 'omit topic for the topic index' does give one concrete invocation instruction, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance beyond that.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns matches plus uncertainties and exact source versions, and it explicitly warns that outside-scope incoming links remain unknown, which is a completeness limitation an agent must know about.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return/limitation caveat and a doc pointer. No filler, though 'See help topic references' shifts work to an external document rather than resolving it inline.

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?

The tool is read-only with an output schema, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still usefully flags uncertainties and version reporting. The gap is the parameter side: with 9 params, nested objects and 0% schema coverage, the undocumented max* limits leave an agent guessing about throttling and truncation behavior.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It partially does: 'source and resolution scopes' maps to scope/resolutionScope, and 'file/heading/block' maps to the target object. But the seven max* limit parameters (maxFiles, maxEntries, maxResults, maxFileBytes, maxTotalBytes, maxOutputBytes) get no mention at all, leaving a large documentation gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Find references to a file/heading/block'), which tells an agent this is a backlink/reference lookup rather than a content search. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearest sibling, search_query, leaving the agent to infer the split between 'what links here' and 'find text'.

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 by 'within explicit source and resolution scopes' and the caveat about outside-scope links, which hints at the scoping model an agent must set up. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. versus search_query), only a pointer to 'help topic references' that defers the decision to external docs.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: query results are evaluated for truthy values, only scope limits the scan while path/glob conditions merely filter, and overflow produces errors rather than truncation. That is meaningful semantics the schema and annotations do not carry.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact, with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation content, and the important overflow-vs-truncation guarantee is stated tersely.

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 JsonLogic query tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, evaluation semantics, scope behavior, overflow handling, and the link-graph exclusion. The only meaningful gap is the absence of an explicit pointer to reference_query as the alternative for link queries, which would complete the routing picture.

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 86%, so the schema already documents scope, the max* caps, and the query object. The description still adds value by enumerating the queryable domains (path, content, tags, frontmatter, stat) that the bare 'query: object' schema does not reveal, and by clarifying that path conditions inside the query filter rather than limit scanning.

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: query Markdown via JsonLogic over path, content, tags, frontmatter and stat. This clearly identifies what the tool does and its query domain. However, it never names the closest sibling (reference_query) even though the 'No link graph' clause hints at the boundary between them, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when' statement or named alternative. The clause 'No link graph' implicitly steers link-oriented queries toward reference_query, and the scope/path-filter clarification implies when scanning vs filtering applies, but an agent must infer the routing rather than read it.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: limits 'fail explicitly' (i.e., errors instead of silent truncation) and inline recognition 'may differ from Obsidian Desktop'. Those caveats are not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Three tight clauses, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the two caveats. Nothing redundant is present.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema documents all five caps. The description covers the surprising edge cases; only the when-to-use gap keeps it from being fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and every cap parameter is self-documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or default guidance beyond the schema's 'omit for defaults'.

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: 'List tags and parent tags with per-file counts', and adds a concrete output detail ('names omit #'). It is clearly distinguishable from vault_list and search_query by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 never says when to reach for tag_list versus search_query or vault_list, nor does it state any prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.

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

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

With annotations only declaring the generic safety flags, the description carries substantial extra load: it discloses upsert semantics, optimistic-concurrency requirements for existing files, a silent side effect (missing final LF is added), input rejection rules (binary/NUL refused), and retry behavior ('no automatic retry'). These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Four compact clauses, no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the caveats. Every clause adds a distinct operational fact, so nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers creation, concurrency, encoding, and retry behavior. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of the content size cap enforced by maxLength, no path-format guidance, and no note on permissions or failure modes.

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 compensate, and it does for two of three params: ifMatch's conditional requirement and content's UTF-8/text-only constraint. It says nothing about the path parameter (format, vault-relative vs absolute), leaving one gap, and the sha256: prefix format is only conveyed by the schema pattern.

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+resource ('Append UTF-8 text') plus upsert behavior ('creates missing files'), which cleanly separates it from vault_write and vault_patch without naming them. Sibling differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Gives one real conditional rule ('Existing files require ifMatch'), which tells the agent when a parameter becomes mandatory. However, it never says when to choose vault_append over vault_write or vault_patch, nor any preconditions such as vault availability or path scoping, so usage is only partially covered.

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

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses that the default path is recoverable via .trash, that permanent=true is irreversible, that ifMatch guards against source changes, and that there is no automatic retry or permanent fallback. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs to avoid data loss and to handle retries itself.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the default (recoverable) behavior before the irreversible flag, with zero filler. Every clause carries distinct operational information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining behavioral essentials, though it omits edge cases such as missing paths or directory handling that a mutation tool could clarify.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden, and it explains the two non-obvious ones: permanent controls irreversibility and ifMatch validates the source. Only 'path' is left undocumented, though its meaning is self-evident from the name.

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 names a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a file in the Vault), and its default semantics ('to recoverable Vault .trash') immediately distinguish it from the read/write/append/patch siblings, which cannot destroy data. An agent can identify this as the sole deletion tool without opening any schema.

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 implies the deletion context and warns that permanent=true is irreversible, but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites apply (e.g. whether the file must exist). Usage is inferable rather than explicit, which matches a 3.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value beyond that by introducing the 'exact-byte version' token and warning that returned keys must be copied unchanged. It nonetheless omits truncation behavior despite bounds on maxBytes/maxHeadings, which is a material behavioral gap.

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, zero filler, with the payload contents front-loaded and the operational caveat second. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained, and the description rightly focuses on how to consume the result. Still, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no note about what happens when maxBytes or maxHeadings are hit, an agent cannot fully predict the call's behavior.

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 carry the full burden of explaining path, maxBytes and maxHeadings. It explains none of them: maxBytes and maxHeadings in particular are opaque limit parameters whose truncation semantics are left entirely undefined, and even 'path' is not clarified as a vault-relative path or a folder path.

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 resource and enumerates what the map contains (heading paths, block IDs, property names, version), which is far more informative than the name alone. It hints at its role relative to siblings by pointing to 'targeted reads/patches', though it never names vault_read or vault_patch explicitly.

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?

'Copy returned keys unchanged for targeted reads/patches' implies a workflow (map first, then targeted read/patch), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. However, it never states when to choose this tool instead of vault_read or the other read siblings, nor any preconditions, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: trailing '/' on directory names, omission of protected/symlink entries, and a failure mode where overflow errors rather than truncates. That error-over-truncation guarantee is exactly the kind of context an agent needs and could not get from the annotations.

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?

A single tight sentence pair: the core action and root-addressing rule come first, then the behavioral caveats. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and the most decision-relevant constraint (root path) is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description adds the filtering rules and the error-not-truncation contract, which is most of what an agent needs; only the maxEntries semantics remain undocumented in prose.

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 has to carry both parameters. It explains path well (omitting it or passing "" selects root), and 'overflow errors, never truncation' indirectly implies maxEntries caps results and errors when exceeded, but maxEntries is never named or bounded in prose. Partial compensation for a coverage gap, hence a mid score.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List a Vault directory') and immediately pins down the scope ('omit path or use "" for root'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from vault_read, vault_get_document_map, and search_query without opening a schema. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it falls just below the top mark.

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?

It tells the agent how to address the root directory ('omit path or use ""'), which is useful invocation guidance, but it never states when to choose vault_list over search_query or tag_list, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the name rather than argued.

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

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

Goes well beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations, disclosing that links and history are NOT updated, that parent directories are created, that overwrite requires allowOverwrite, that ifMatch validates the source only, and that there is no retry or cross-filesystem fallback. These are exactly the side-effect and failure-mode details an agent needs before a destructive move.

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?

Five dense clauses, each conveying a distinct constraint, with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a destructive move tool the description covers side effects, overwrite conditions, precondition checking, and failure behavior, leaving nothing critical unstated.

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 carry the parameters. It explains allowOverwrite (required for overwriting), ifMatch (validates source only), and destination semantics via the trailing-slash rule; only the plain path/destination roles are left implicit.

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 ('Move a file'), which is immediately distinguishable from read/list siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with vault_write + vault_delete, the plausible alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 use case (moving a file) is implied clearly, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings such as delete-then-write, and no preconditions stated beyond the conditional overwrite rule. It gives conditional mechanics rather than selection guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the exact-byte ifMatch precondition (optimistic concurrency) and "No automatic retry" — a non-obvious behavioral trait an agent must handle itself. It stops short of describing auth needs or what a failed ifMatch returns.

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?

Four terse sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the ifMatch precondition, with no filler. It is dense but every clause carries information; it is arguably too compressed given the tool's complexity rather than padded.

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 12-parameter, nested-object, destructive mutation with 17% schema coverage, a four-sentence description is thin. Output schema existing means return values need not be explained, but the mutation semantics, parameter behavior, and sibling routing are largely absent, leaving real gaps an agent would hit.

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 only 17% across 12 parameters with nested objects, so the description must compensate heavily but only touches ifMatch, map-key copying, and heading relative levels. It says nothing about operation, scope, targetType, destination, createTargetIfMissing, or rejectIfContentPreexists, leaving most parameters documented only by their bare enum values.

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 (patch) and concrete resources (heading/block/property), and the ifMatch phrasing signals a conditional partial update distinct from a full write. It is clear on its own but never names or contrasts with siblings like vault_write, vault_append, or vault_move, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"with exact-byte ifMatch from a read/map" implies the prerequisite workflow (obtain the token from vault_read/vault_get_document_map before calling), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative statement, no when-not guidance, and no routing against the other mutation siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context: results carry a version, targeted heading levels are resolved relative to a base, and the read does not traverse a link graph.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. It is terse to the point of leaving some parameter behavior unexplained, but every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The gaps are the undocumented maxBytes/targetType parameters and the interplay of scope with target, which the description does not clarify.

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 coverage is only 40%, with maxBytes and targetType carrying no descriptions at all. The description partially compensates by explaining target discovery and the relative nature of heading targets, but it says nothing about maxBytes truncation or targetType values, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 ('Read a Vault text file or target') and adds scope qualifiers ('with its version', 'No link graph') that separate it from graph-oriented siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with vault_read_binary, but the 'text file' framing implies the distinction.

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?

Points the agent to vault_get_document_map for discovering targets, which is genuine routing guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over vault_read_binary or other read siblings, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions beyond that one pointer.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value beyond them: a 4 MiB cap in bytes mode, a signed HTTPS link in auto mode, and a hard PDF exclusion. It does not mention whether signed links expire or require auth, which is the one notable gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope statement, then mode behaviors, then the exclusion. Every clause carries information and there is no filler, though the telegraphic style trades a little readability for density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the supported content types, all three modes at least in outline, the size cap, and the PDF exclusion — enough for correct invocation, with only link-mode details and path semantics left implicit.

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 carry the parameters. It explains the 'auto' and 'bytes' enum values and implies 'link' via the signed-URL mention, but the third enum value is never described on its own and 'path' is undocumented. Partial compensation for a 2-param tool.

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 and resource ('Read images and non-PDF attachments'), which implicitly scopes it away from the text-reading sibling vault_read. It does not name vault_read explicitly, so the sibling differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It clearly states the negative case ('PDF is unsupported in every mode') and routes PDFs to an alternative ('use the client's native file upload/attachments'), and it describes each 'as' mode. It never says when to prefer auto vs bytes vs link, leaving that inference to the agent.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: parent directories are created, binary/NUL content is refused, there is no automatic retry, and no force-override exists for existing files. It stops short of noting permission/auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

Four terse clauses, front-loaded with the core action before constraints. Every sentence carries a distinct behavioral fact with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a mutating tool the description covers the crucial mechanics (ifMatch gating, parent creation, refusal rules, retry behavior), leaving only path semantics and content limits unaddressed.

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 carry the load. It meaningfully explains ifMatch's purpose (required for existing files, no force bypass), but says nothing about path format constraints or the content size limit that the schema enforces. It compensates for one of three parameters only.

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+resource ('Create or replace UTF-8 text'), which is far more precise than the bare name vault_write. It implicitly differentiates from siblings vault_append/vault_patch by emphasizing replace semantics, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

It gives a conditional rule ('Existing files require ifMatch; no force bypass') which implies when the tool is applicable, but never states when to choose it over vault_append or vault_patch, nor what happens on a first-time create vs overwrite beyond the ifMatch hint. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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