agent-manager.dev documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds useful behavior beyond that — output is Markdown and site chrome is stripped, which tells the agent the page text is already cleaned. It omits failure behavior for an invalid slug (e.g. whether it errors or returns empty), which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences with zero redundancy; the output format and chrome-stripping detail lead, followed by the slug provenance. 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?

With one fully documented parameter, annotations covering safety, and an output schema that carries return structure, the description covers what an agent needs to call it. Only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already gives example slugs, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: slugs are expected to originate from sibling tools and may contain slashes, which clarifies format expectations for nested paths.

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 (return one page), resource (agent-manager.dev docs), and output format (Markdown with site chrome removed). It names the sibling tools only as slug sources rather than contrasting scope, so the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 line 'The slug comes from search_docs or get_reference' encodes the intended workflow: discover a slug first, then fetch that page. There is no explicit 'do not use this to search' exclusion, but the routing context is clear enough for an agent to pick correctly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: 'release' is read live from GitHub, and 'mcp_tools' describes tools that run on the developer's own machine over stdio rather than on this server. It does not mention caching, latency, or any limits on live GitHub reads, but the key behavioral distinction is disclosed.

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 dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core action and then enumerates topics in a logical order. Every clause carries information; the semicolon-heavy structure is slightly harder to scan than a short bulleted breakdown would be.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not document return shape, and it still explains the content of each topic well enough for an agent to choose correctly. The only minor gap is that it does not clarify whether the reference lists are exhaustive or paginated, though for a small reference tool this is likely unnecessary.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter and all enum values. The description still adds meaningful semantic detail for the required 'topic' parameter by explaining exactly what each topic returns and when it is useful, which goes beyond the schema's one-line 'Which reference list to return'.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Return one reference list about agent-manager') and then names all four topic values, making the tool's scope immediately clear. It also distinguishes the 'agents' topic from a general docs lookup by tying it to the specific question 'does agent-manager support X'.

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 gives clear topic-by-topic context: use 'agents' to answer support questions, use 'release' for the newest GitHub release and install commands, and use 'mcp_tools' to see tools registered into sessions. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like get_doc_page or search_docs, so it stops short of 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context about the search scope and that results are summaries tied to get_doc_page, but it does not go deeper into rate limits, pagination, or exact result structure beyond the available output schema.

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 sentences with no filler, and the most important information ('search every page', 'use first when you do not know') is front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

With a complete input schema, an output schema, annotations, and only two simple parameters, the description covers the key operational context: what gets searched, what is returned, and how the result connects to get_doc_page. Nothing critical 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%, so both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning but reinforces that 'query' is the key search input; this meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('search'), the resource ('every page of agent-manager.dev'), and the fields searched ('title, description and section'). It also explains the return shape (page summaries with slugs), which clearly differentiates it from get_doc_page and list_doc_pages.

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 to use this first when the agent does not already know which page answers the question, which gives clear when-to-use guidance. It also implies the alternative path by noting the slug get_doc_page takes, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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