Metis — Verify Backup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the operation (integrity_check) and output format but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or safe to run. Missing details on error handling (e.g., if file is missing or encrypted).

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 extremely concise: three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes necessary parameter details. Every sentence is informative.

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 low complexity (one parameter, simple output), the description covers the main behavior and output shape. It could be improved by mentioning what happens on errors (e.g., file not found, corrupted), but the core integrity_check behavior is adequately described.

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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning by specifying 'Full path to an unencrypted .sqlite backup.' This clarifies the parameter's type, format, and secrecy requirement, compensating for the schema's lack of description.

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 runs SQLite integrity_check on a backup file, specifying the exact action and resource. Among siblings like backup_db, restore_db, and list_backups, it is distinctly focused on verification.

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 implies use for verifying backup integrity but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., file must already exist) or when not to use.

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