MCP server manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely new context the annotations lack: 'zero-auth' (no credentials needed) and 'no external side effects', which are useful invocation facts.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: usage condition first, then behavioral guarantees, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place and the important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-param, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers when to use it, its safety/auth profile, and that it returns a manifest. It could be slightly richer by indicating what the manifest contains (server names, endpoints, transports), which an agent configuring clients might want.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing further the description could meaningfully add about parameter semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns a JSON server manifest') and scopes it to MCP client configuration for named source checkouts. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly-named discovery siblings like telos.catalog or telos.mcp.freshness.

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 states a concrete usage context ('Use when configuring MCP clients for gather, index, forum, crucible, and telos source checkouts'), which is a clear when-to-use signal. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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