efm_get_manifest

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states what is returned (manifest components) and its informational purpose, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error conditions, or required permissions. The word 'get' implies a read operation, but that is not guaranteed. The description provides some transparency but leaves gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds a high-value explanatory sentence about deployability. There is zero redundancy or filler; every word earns its place.

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 an output schema exists (as noted in context), the description need not detail return values. It covers the primary purpose, the scope, and the practical implication for flow building. It does not mention edge cases like missing classes or pluralization of manifests, but for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide and call 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%, so the description must compensate. It references 'for a class' which clarifies that agent_class is the class identifier, and the purpose sentence links it to deployability. However, it does not specify the format of agent_class, where to find valid values (e.g., via efm_list_agent_classes), or any constraints. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 retrieves agent manifest(s) for a class, enumerating the manifest components (processor, controller-service, reporting-task types) and its role in determining deployability. It distinguishes from sibling efm_get_manifest_by_id by focusing on 'class' rather than an ID, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 gives a purpose-driven usage hint ('tells you whether a flow you want to build is even deployable to that class's agents'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with efm_get_manifest_by_id or other sibling tools, nor does it state prerequisites like obtaining a valid agent_class from efm_list_agent_classes.

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