verify_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read/comparison behavior and that missing headings are reported, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating or describe any side effects or required permissions. This is a basic level of transparency, not comprehensive.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and avoids any redundancy. Every phrase 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?

For a simple verification tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter role adequately. It could include more on when to use, but the operation's simplicity and the presence of an output schema reduce the need for extensive elaboration.

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?

The description references 'Quelldatei' (source file), clarifying that the sourceFile parameter contains the version headings used for comparison. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only defines the parameter name and type. With only one parameter, this is sufficient compensation for the 0% schema coverage.

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 compares version headings from a source file against the store and reports missing ones. It uses a specific verb ('Vergleicht') and defines the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_current_version or list_unreleased.

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 implies the tool is used to verify the completeness of version headings in the store, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other store management tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. Context is present but not fully explicit.

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