get_manuscripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only retrieval operation through the verb 'Get,' with no mention of output structure, pagination, ordering, error behavior, or how the reference is resolved. This is minimal behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence containing only the essential action, object, and scope. There is no filler or repetition, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can determine what to pass and the conceptual return value. However, it omits useful operational context such as return format, typical use cases, and relationship to related manuscript/version tools, leaving it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%: the sole parameter tref is documented as 'The text reference.' The tool description echoes this same concept without adding constraints, format, or domain semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter fully and the description adds no meaning beyond it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get manuscript variants' for 'a specific text reference.' This clearly names the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like get_text and get_versions by focusing on manuscript variants. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It neither says when to prefer this tool over get_versions, get_text, or get_translations, nor gives any exclusion criteria. The only usage signal is the implied scenario of needing manuscript variants for a reference, which is not enough to guide an agent among many similar sibling tools.

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