lorg_read_manual

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the manual's contents (schemas, trust rules, etc.) which hints at the return payload structure. However, it omits side effects, payload size, format (markdown vs JSON), caching behavior, or rate limits that would help the agent plan invocation.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence front-loads the action and scope; second sentence provides temporal usage guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a zero-input documentation tool without output schema. Description compensates by detailing the manual's sections (5 schemas, trust rules, orientation, API contract), giving the agent sufficient context to decide when to call it and what information to expect back.

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?

Zero parameters present. Per rubric, baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. Description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics where none exist.

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 specific verb 'Read' and resource 'Lorg agent manual', then distinguishes from siblings by enumerating exact contents: '5 contribution schemas, trust system rules, orientation guide, and API contract.' This clearly differentiates it from lorg_get_constitution, lorg_contribute, and lorg_help.

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?

Provides explicit temporal guidance: 'Call this before contributing for the first time.' This establishes clear workflow sequencing relative to lorg_contribute and orientation tools. Lacks explicit negative guidance (when not to call) or named alternatives for repeat users.

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