storekit_parity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral context: it returns every mismatch and that 'ok=true means in parity', which is useful output semantics beyond structured fields. However, it never states it is a read-only/non-mutating comparison, nor any auth or side-effect profile, leaving the safety burden partly unmet.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and both operands first, followed by the enumerated mismatch outputs and the parity flag. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description appropriately avoids that. For a simple two-parameter read-only comparison, purpose and output semantics are covered; only the parameter meanings (app_dir, storekit_path) are left unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0% for 2 parameters. The description references the files being compared (StoreKit config vs app.spec.json), which loosely maps to storekit_path, but the required 'app_dir' parameter and the optional/default-null nature of storekit_path are never explained. It does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('Compare'), the two resources ('Configuration.storekit' and 'app.spec.json'), and enumerates the exact mismatch categories checked. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling storekit_generate (which produces rather than validates StoreKit config).

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?

Usage is implied by the description (run to verify parity between a StoreKit config and the app spec), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of adjacent tools like config_doctor, metadata_check, or storekit_generate. The agent must infer it fits a pre-submission validation step.

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