Capture state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Store') but does not mention side effects, required permissions, how artifacts are linked, or any return behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, direct sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief to be complete. It lacks details on what 'resource-linked artifacts' means, how to use the parameters, and when this tool should be invoked relative to siblings. The minimalism leaves critical gaps for correct usage.

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 input schema has two properties (text, label) with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the meaning or purpose of these parameters, nor does it compensate for the schema's lack of detail. An agent cannot infer how to fill these fields correctly.

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 identifies the action (Store) and the resources (logs, snapshots, state summaries) as resource-linked artifacts. It is specific enough to convey the tool's role, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like retrieve_context or read_resource.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the terse action statement.

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