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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=falsekin. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the return value: a JSON object mapping paths to metadata (description, type, optional tags/category). It doesn't discuss auth or errors, but the safety profile is covered by annotations.

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 concise sentences. The first front-loads the purpose; the second clarifies the return shape without repetition.

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 readOne operation with a single parameter, the description adequately explains what is returned. It lacks details like error behavior or whether the manifest is cached/large, but the output shape and read-only nature are enough for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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%: the only parameter dsId is described as 'The design system ID'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about dsId's format or how to find a valid ID, so it stays at the baseline for high 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a concrete resource ('manifest.json file'), and explains what it contains (mapping of file/folder paths to metadata). It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling design_system-get_files, but the resource is distinct enough.

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 use case – retrieve the manifest describing the design system documentation structure – but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the similar-sounding design_system-get_files sibling.

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