Image Manifest Read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this verifies source and artifact bytes, which is useful behavioral context, but it omits what happens on a digest mismatch (error vs. partial result) and how 'bounded' artifact inclusion behaves.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action first, with no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing verification clause packs two distinct behaviors into one unpunctuated phrase.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the core action and verification intent, leaving only edge-case behavior (digest mismatch, 'where bounded' artifacts) unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (manifest_path, expected_sha256, include_image) are already documented in the schema, setting a baseline of 3. The description's 'verify its source and artifact bytes' loosely gestures at expected_sha256 and include_image but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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+resource (read a manifest) and adds verification of source and artifact bytes, which is more than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as image_read, media_info, or source_ingest_read, and the phrase 'exact manifest' is jargon that isn't explained.

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 clause 'after restart' implies a usage context (post-restart integrity verification), which is a weak but real hint at when to invoke it. No alternatives are named and no explicit when-not condition is given, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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