efm_get_manifest_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content ('full component-type catalog with property descriptors'), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. For a simple read-by-id tool, this is adequate but not rich, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 primary action and outcome. Every clause serves a purpose, with no filler or redundancy. The structure is efficient and scannable.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, where the ID comes from, and what it returns. It does not explain differences from efm_get_manifest or address edge cases, but for a straightforward lookup, it is nearly complete.

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. The only parameter, manifest_id, is not elaborated beyond the schema property name. The description merely says 'by its id', adding no format, examples, or source details beyond what the schema already implies. This is a minimal compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a clear verb (get) and resource (one agent manifest by its id), and specifies the source of the id ('as listed on an agent class or agent record'). It is distinct from siblings like efm_list_agent_classes and efm_get_agent, but does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named efm_get_manifest, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use it by indicating the id comes from an agent class or agent record, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is enough for an agent to infer that this tool is for fetching a specific manifest by ID.

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