Validate library asset

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with the description. The description adds behavioral context: it is a read-only operation and returns the specific problem. This goes beyond what annotations provide, making the behavior transparent. No contradictions.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers the core purpose and usage well. It hints at the return value (specific problem) but does not detail success behavior. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description bears full burden. It adds meaning by specifying 'on disk' for the path and 'referenced by an optional manifest' for manifest_path. However, it does not provide details like accepted formats or constraints, leaving some ambiguity. Thus, it partially compensates but could be more explicit.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Check that a local library asset exists on disk and is referenced by an optional manifest.' It uses a specific verb (check/validate) and resource (library asset), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning it is a pre-flight check for make_portable_tox and install_library_package.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Read-only pre-flight for packaging: catches missing or unreferenced files before make_portable_tox / install_library_package.' It also explains the benefit (returns specific problem rather than failing later). Though it does not explicitly say when not to use it, the context is clear.

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