store_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-like operation ('Show') and adds useful context about the shared history mechanism. It does not describe output format or error conditions, but that is acceptable for a simple zero-parameter info tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('Show the active storage file path') and adds a brief rationale. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description provides the core purpose and enough context for an AI agent to understand when to invoke it. It could theoretically mention the return format, but 'Show the active storage file path' adequately implies the output.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%. Per the scoring baseline, no additional parameter explanation is needed. The description focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameters, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('active storage file path'), and explains its purpose ('so different MCP clients share the same history'). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on session operations rather than storage path inspection.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to verify that different MCP clients share the same history by checking the active storage file path. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose statement makes the usage scenario obvious.

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