Read pinned artifact manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the workspace scope and the boundary that it does not read manifest bodies. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but with annotations this is above adequate.

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 sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the key scope exclusion. There is no wasted verbiage.

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?

The tool is a simple two-parameter read with an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Parameters are fully documented in the schema, annotations cover idempotency and read-only behavior, and the description states workspace scope and the no-bodies constraint. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and both parameters (manifest_id, manifest_sha256) have their own schema descriptions, including the warning to never substitute latest. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 (pinned active manifest in this workspace), and adds a scope exclusion (without reading its bodies) that implicitly distinguishes it from artifact_read. However, it does not name or explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like artifact_manifest_verify or artifact_read, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 phrasing implies when to use it (to get manifest metadata without body content), but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives. An agent must infer that artifact_read is for bodies and verify is for validation.

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