linka-manifest

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

The description mentions 'static', implying read-only and idempotent behavior, but with no annotations, it does not fully disclose behavioral traits such as caching or update frequency. Adequate 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but could be more complete by specifying return format or usage context. It does not cover what the manifest contains or any side effects beyond 'static'.

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 no parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add param info. The description lacks any parameter details, which is acceptable.

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 returns a 'static manifest' for the 'Linka MCP base', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like status or diagnostics tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool is simple and self-explanatory, the description does not provide any context or exclusions.

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