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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the file path pattern, which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't elaborate on what the manifest contains, how it's returned, or any potential errors (e.g., missing file). This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target clearly. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately concise and structured with a direct verb-object format.

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 read tool with one well-documented parameter and robust annotations, the description provides the essential path context. It doesn't need to explain return values since there is no output schema and the manifest content could be assumed. Given the tool's low complexity, it is quite complete.

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 only parameter 'name' is fully documented with an enumerated list of valid scenario names. The description adds the path template tying the parameter to a file location, which slightly enhances meaning, but baseline is 3 because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('scenario manifest from reference-apps/<scenario>/manifest.yaml'), making it distinct from siblings like tide_scenario (likely reads full scenario) or tide_list. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it misses the top score for differentiation.

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 usage for reading a manifest file, and the context of sibling tools (e.g., tide_scenario, tide_choose_scenario) provides some situational awareness. Yet it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, such as when a user wants just the manifest vs. full scenario details.

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