StoreKit Parity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the description reinforces it with '(read-only)'. It adds genuinely new behavioral context by defining the success semantics ('ok=true means in parity'), which annotations cannot express. It does not mention permissions, cost, or failure modes.

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?

Three short lines, each doing distinct work: what it does, when to use it, and what the result means. Purpose and scope are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only comparison tool with full schema coverage, full annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and the meaning of the ok flag. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, with both app_dir and storekit_path fully documented including the default resolution rule for storekit_path. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) plus the two resources being compared (Configuration.storekit vs app.spec.json) and the outcome (list every mismatch). An agent can immediately distinguish it from storekit_generate and store_setup in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'verifying products match before store_setup or release', which ties it to a workflow stage and names a sibling tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it or listing alternatives for adjacent checks (e.g. config_doctor, metadata_check).

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