vault_get_document_map

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful detail about what the map contains and that its keys are intended to be reused unchanged, but it does not explain truncation behavior, limits, or what happens when maxBytes/maxHeadings are hit.

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 two compact sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the key-reuse instruction.

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 output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety, but the 0%-described parameters are a significant gap for a tool whose maxBytes and maxHeadings settings affect what the map contains. The description does not compensate for that missing parameter semantics.

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%, with three parameters (path, maxBytes, maxHeadings) and no descriptions in the schema. The description does not mention any parameter, so an agent gets no guidance on what the limits mean or how they affect the returned map.

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 ('Get') and lists concrete returned artifacts: heading paths, block IDs, property names, version, and versionGuard. This clearly distinguishes it from a plain document read, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with vault_read/vault_list.

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 implies the tool is used before targeted reads/patches by saying to copy returned keys unchanged. However, it does not name the alternative tools or state when not to use this map, leaving the routing decision partially implicit.

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