vault_read

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.