verify_mcp_manifest

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: 'Read-only; no network' and describes the return tuple with conditions for ok false (bad signature or drift). This goes beyond annotations by explaining output semantics and error conditions without contradiction.

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: first defines the action; second gives usage context and return format. No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description still explains return values and key conditions. It covers behavioral constraints (read-only, no network), usage context (CI/trust before upgrade), and parameter roles. The tool is simple (2 params, no enums) and the description fully addresses its complexity.

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's parameter explanations ('Optional baseline signed manifest for rug-pull drift detection', 'Signed ssx360.mcp-manifest.v1 to verify offline') are identical to the schema's own descriptions. Thus the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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?

Description clearly states the tool verifies a signed MCP manifest and optionally diffs against a baseline. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_agent_trace and verify_envelope by specifying the resource type (MCP manifest) and the operation (verify with diff). It also suggests a concrete use case (CI or before trusting after upgrade).

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?

Explicitly recommends using in CI or before trusting after upgrade. States it is read-only and no network, which reassures safe usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like verify_agent_trace, though the specific resource type implicitly differentiates.

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