Advanced: runtime manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that this is an advanced/internal tool and not the default path, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as output shape, pagination, or failure behavior. This is adequate given the low complexity and annotation coverage.

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 very short and front-loaded with the most important information: the tool is advanced/internal and returns a machine manifest with specific fields. The routing guidance and default-path warning are packed into two additional clauses without redundancy.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation context: what the manifest contains and when to avoid this tool. It does not explain terms like 'door=fraggate' or 'engine slugs,' but for an advanced/internal tool this is likely sufficient for the intended audience.

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?

There are zero parameters and a vacuous 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description mentions the manifest fields, which is enough context for a no-argument call.

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 identifies the resource as a machine manifest and enumerates its contents (version, role, door=fraggate, engine slugs). It does not use a direct verb like 'get' or 'list,' and the distinction from runtime_skill/fraggate_list is more about routing than function, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives explicit alternatives ('Prefer runtime_skill or fraggate_list') and warns this is not the default agent path, which tells an agent when not to use it. However, the positive condition for when runtime_manifest should be chosen is only vaguely implied by '[advanced/internal]', not explicitly stated.

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