Get result manifest

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation that may access external resources. The description adds that it cross-references local run history, which implies data may be combined from multiple sources, but it does not disclose where manifests are stored beyond 'project/manifests', whether profile affects storage location, or any rate limits or return format details. With annotations covering safety, this is a moderate addition.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and mentions the secondary listing behavior. It is efficient but could be slightly clearer without being verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the manifest JSON contains or what the list of manifests looks like. For a tool with three parameters, partial schema coverage, and no annotations on return values, the description should provide more context about the expected outputs and how to interpret them.

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 67%, and the description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema. The schema describes 'profile' and 'project' but leaves 'runId' undocumented; the description does not compensate. Baseline 3 when schema does most of the work.

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 says it reads a run's manifest JSON or lists available manifests, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not clarify how it differs from many other sibling tools that deal with runs or job history, and the phrase 'manifest JSON' assumes domain knowledge. The dual read/list behavior is mentioned but not clearly separated.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like ris_job_history or ris_list_my_jobs for accessing run information. The dual mode (read manifest vs. list manifests) is noted but without conditions for choosing one over the other.

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