Manual

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful mode behavior beyond that: no-argument invocation returns an index, `page` reads exactly one page, and `query` lists pages matching every word. It does not discuss output formatting or error behavior, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then mode-specific details. There is no filler; every sentence adds usable information.

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 read-only manual tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers all three invocation modes and enough examples to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain: no explicit sibling differentiation from `man`, and `output_format` is only inferable from the schema.

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 67%, and the schema already documents `page` with examples and `query` with AND-matching semantics. The description largely repeats those examples and adds the `man -k` analogy, but does not cover the undocumented `output_format` parameter. A baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the Basic Memory manual.' It then distinguishes the three invocation modes (index, page, query), so an agent can tell this apart from note-reading or shell-manual siblings by resource scope.

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?

It clearly explains how the modes behave: no arguments returns the index, `page` reads one page, `query` searches pages by all given words. It gives examples such as 'bm-search(3)' and 'man -k', but does not explicitly say when to use this versus sibling tools like `bm_search` or `man`.

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