wm_db_check

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

With no annotations this description carries the full burden and does so: read-only semantics, the return shape (table names), explicit non-actions, failure semantics for missing/empty databases and missing required tables, and an explicit scope ceiling ('checks path/schema only, not data freshness or identity'). That last clause is exactly the kind of limitation an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded identity statement followed by tightly packed scope, non-action, failure, and limitation clauses. No sentence is filler; each one carries distinct 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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers return contents, failure modes, mutation guarantees, and the boundary of what success means. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining that resource_id refers to a resource registered in the policy rather than an arbitrary file path, but it gives no format, example, or lookup behavior for the identifier. Minimal compensation over a single undocumented string parameter.

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 (check) and resource (the exact SQLite resource registered by resource_id in the policy), and enumerates what the tool will NOT do, which cleanly separates it from siblings like wm_health, wm_verify, wm_audit, and wm_repair-style tools. An agent can pick this out without opening the schema.

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 negative list ('never creates databases or tables, repairs, deletes, searches for substitutes, or accepts SQL') gives clear boundary conditions that imply when this tool is the right choice, and the failure conditions tell the agent when it will error. It stops short of naming a concrete alternative sibling for the excluded operations, so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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