read_manifest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose concrete behavior: it refuses any file not named post_manifest.json and returns the full envelope. It does not state permission requirements or failure modes beyond the name check, so it isn't fully transparent.

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, nothing wasted; the purpose and the hard constraint are both front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, provenance, and the filename restriction. The phrase 'return the full envelope' is only loosely informative about the return value, which is acceptable but not maximally clear.

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?

The single parameter is already fully documented in the schema ('absolute path to a post_manifest.json'), so any description of it duplicates structured data. The 'refuses any file not named post_manifest.json' line adds a validation nuance, but the schema coverage is 100%, which sets the baseline at 3.

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 (read) and resource (an existing post_manifest.json), and ties provenance to prior tooling ('produced by a previous extract/lookup'), which cleanly separates it from extract_post and lookup_post.

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?

Clearly frames the use case as re-reading output from a prior extract/lookup, plus a hard constraint (refuses files not named post_manifest.json). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a named alternative, so it stops short of 5.

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