Verify backup integrity

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

The description discloses key behaviors: runs PRAGMA integrity check, compares schema/row counts when 'against' is given, returns JSON report, and notes read-only and local-file constraints. These details add value beyond the annotations, which already indicate read-only and idempotent hints.

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 (two sentences) yet packs all essential information. It front-loads the primary action ('Verify a SQLite backup') and efficiently communicates the conditional behavior and constraints.

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 three well-documented parameters in the schema, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the core logic (integrity check) and the optional comparison, which suffices 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds extra semantics by explaining that 'against' triggers schema and row count comparison, beyond the schema's 'Optional local reference database to compare schema against'. This clarifies the tool's behavior beyond the parameter descriptions.

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: verifying a SQLite backup via PRAGMA integrity check, with optional comparison against a reference database. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like litescope_diff by focusing on backup verification specifically.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating 'Read-only. (Local files only.)' and describing the optional 'against' parameter. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context of backup verification is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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