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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: what data is returned (storage metrics, last save times, recommendations), the lightweight check behavior when includeStorageInfo is false, and a note that it is auto-registered. This adds value without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured with markdown sections (Advantages, Parameters, Returns, Notes), but it is verbose for a tool with a single optional parameter. There is redundancy: the main paragraph, Advantages bullet, and Returns section all repeat similar information (disk usage, timestamps, recommendations). It could be tightened without losing clarity, though the front-loaded summary helps.

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 has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains what the tool returns (Returns section), parameter behavior, related tools, and practical notes (e.g., lightweight check, regular monitoring). Everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret the result is present.

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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully explains the only parameter: 'includeStorageInfo (boolean): Whether to include detailed disk usage and file information. Defaults to true.' It also gives usage guidance in Notes ('Set includeStorageInfo: false for lightweight check'). This completely compensates for the schema gap.

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 it 'Provides detailed information about the persistence system's current state' and enumerates the specific data returned (enabled state, cache directory, disk usage, file counts, timestamps, recommendations). This specific verb+resource combination clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like persistence-enable and persistence-disable, which perform actions rather than status queries.

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 'Related Tools' section names persistence-enable and persistence-disable as alternatives, implicitly indicating when to use this status tool vs. those. The 'Advantages' list further clarifies usage contexts (monitoring disk usage, verifying persistence, troubleshooting). It does not explicitly state 'when not to use' but provides enough contextual guidance to route an agent correctly.

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