mcp_tool_manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, indicating a safe, idempotent read. Description adds valuable context about being a good pre-call before relying on other tools, and specifies that it returns status flags. No contradictions; adds behavior beyond 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences. First sentence defines the tool's output and structure, second gives practical usage advice. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately specifies the return structure (JSON manifest with implementation_status, env vars, Tier-1 flags). It also covers when to use it (CI, indexing, planning). The single parameter is fully covered by the schema. Feels complete for its complexity.

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?

Only one parameter (include_tool_details) with full schema description (100% coverage). The parameter is well-documented in the schema, so the description's lack of additional parameter info is acceptable. Baseline 3 for high 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?

Description clearly states it returns a JSON manifest of all registered MCP tools with specific fields (implementation_status, env vars, Tier-1 flags). The verb 'Return' and resource specification are precise, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_tool_details or discover_tools by focusing on the full manifest with status flags.

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 states use cases: CI, Onyx indexing, and honest agent planning. It advises calling before relying on V8-V20 tools, which provides clear context for when to use it. Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is strong enough to inform agent decisions.

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