get_agent_manifest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes the tool is 'free' and describes it as a catalog, implying a read-only informational nature, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, or discuss permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. This is adequate but minimal.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key directive 'Start here', and contains no filler. Every phrase contributes meaningful information (contents, next step), making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool returns by listing the manifest contents (catalog of 3 terminal tools, value_proposition_v1, use_scenarios_v1, glossary_v1) and the recommended follow-up. It is slightly cryptic with versioned names but sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter (locale) with its allowed values and default, and the description does not add any additional meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description adds no extra value for parameters.

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 tool as an entry-point manifest cataloging 3 terminal tools plus supporting documents, distinguishing it from siblings by instructing to start here and then call get_liq_radar. It uses 'Start here' as the verb, which implies retrieval of a catalog, and lists specific contents, making the purpose clear even if not a conventional verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Start here') and provides a direct next step ('Then call get_liq_radar for the forced-order map'). This gives clear sequencing but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like swap_via_nattswap, so it falls short of a full 5.

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