open77_manifest_schemaAccess the Open77 resource manifest schema with every directive, its default, rule, and a complete example.
Every directive of the resource manifest with its form, default and rule, plus a complete example.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to establish safety. The description adds useful scope detail about what documentation is returned, but does not disclose output format, size, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is acceptable but minimal.
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 that front-loads the key scope and enumerates the deliverable components. There is no filler or redundant information; every phrase adds value.
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-parameter, read-only reference tool with an empty schema, the description tells the agent what it will receive: every directive with form, default, rule, and an example. It lacks an explicit statement of the output representation and any usage context, preventing a perfect score.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining what the returned content covers, and no parameter-level detail is required.
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 identifies a reference/documentation tool for the open77.lua resource manifest grammar and lists the content components (form, default, rule, example). It is specific enough to be distinguished from sibling tools by topic, though it does not explicitly contrast with open77_server_config_schema.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling reference tools like open77_guide, open77_api, or open77_server_config_schema. There are no exclusions or context hints, so an agent must infer the intended use from the title and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.