PAIDEIA__alt_capability_manifest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the return value but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. However, the content implied (returning a manifest) suggests no side effects, earning a mid-range score.

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, each earning its place: the first explains the alias purpose, the second details the output. Front-loaded with critical naming guidance, no redundant or vague filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return content (setup, SDK boundary, rules, recipes). The two optional parameters are thoroughly explained with default behaviors, and the tool's purpose is self-contained.

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 the description adds valuable default-behavior details for both parameters (auto-discovery for repo_root, CWD default for project_root). This goes beyond the schema's type and description, aiding correct invocation.

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 states that this tool returns the machine-readable Alt manifest, specifically naming its components (setup, SDK boundary, PAIDEIA rules, action-to-tool recipes). It also distinguishes itself as the PAIDEIA namespace alias for alt_capability_manifest, clarifying its unique identity among siblings.

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 advises to use this exact name when Alt searches for it, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. While it does not list when-not-to-use or alternatives, the specificity is sufficient given the large sibling set.

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