config_manifest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's output nature (compressed summary, sources, risk hotspots) and hints at performance ('load once per session'), suggesting it is a read-only aggregation operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether it modifies state, whether it performs file I/O that might have side effects, or any rate limits. The description is informative but not fully transparent about behavioral boundaries.

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 a single sentence that packs a lot of relevant information: purpose, content, and usage guidance. It front-loads the core purpose ('Compressed, project-wide summary') and then adds specifics. It is concise and well-structured, though it could be slightly less dense. No waste.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description must provide extensive context. It explains what the tool returns and gives a usage hint, but it omits essential details: what files are expected (input semantics), how projectRoot and maxVariables affect behavior, what the output format is, and when to use this versus other siblings beyond resolve_variable. The description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this tool correctly.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no explanations for the three parameters. The description does not mention any of them (files, projectRoot, maxVariables). An agent has no clue from the description what values to provide or how the parameters affect the tool's behavior. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap, making parameter semantics severely deficient.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: producing a compressed, project-wide summary of config variables, including sources, domains, and risk hotspots. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling resolve_variable by positioning as a session-level alternative, making it unambiguous what the tool does and when it differs from at least one sibling.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Load once per session instead of repeated resolve_variable calls.' This tells an agent when to prefer this tool over a specific sibling. However, it does not mention other siblings (trace_variable, impact_preview, diff_environments) or provide exclusions for when not to use this tool, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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