store

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

With no annotations provided, the description explains key behaviors: fetching a web page for 'url', persistent storage for 'scratchpad', and file watching for 'project'. More details on side effects or error handling would improve transparency, but the current description is informative.

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 sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second elaborates on the four types, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and complex interactions (e.g., conditional requirements like forProject), the description provides a high-level summary but lacks details on parameter dependencies and return behavior. More completeness would help the agent compose correct invocations.

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%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds value by mapping parameter types to use cases, e.g., 'library' for reference documentation, which helps the agent understand parameter combination context beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Store content or register a project.' It then lists four specific types (library, url, scratchpad, project) with their distinct usage, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use each type (library for reference docs, url for web pages, scratchpad for notes, project for directories). However, it does not compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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