check_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavioral fact: the operation does not write. However it does not state what happens when the store is missing or corrupt, whether it needs an existing file, what the result looks like, or any permissions/timeout behavior for a migration check.

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 zero filler; the scoping fact ('without writing') comes last where it belongs. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to cover a diagnostic tool's behavior.

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?

The tool is structurally simple (one optional param, no nested objects), so the description is nearly sufficient to call it. Gaps remain around return values and error behavior — with no output schema, the description could have said what a health/migration report contains, and it does not.

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 the single db parameter, so the description must compensate. It says nothing about what 'db' expects (a filesystem path?), how to target a non-default store, or what the default 'evidence.sqlite3' means in context. The name and default already live in the schema, so no value is added.

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 gives a specific verb (inspect) and resource (store) plus the two aspects checked: health and migration compatibility. It stands apart from the get_/list_/query_ siblings, which are evidence-retrieval tools, so the agent can tell it is a diagnostic rather than a data fetcher. The only missing element is an explicit comparison to a sibling alternative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, but the phrase 'without writing' implies a safe pre-flight/diagnostic use before a migration. No alternatives or exclusions are named, and none of the siblings overlaps, so the implied usage is adequate but thin.

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