memory_agent_manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by specifying it is machine-readable, to be called first, and that it supports privacy_mode documentation—details not in the annotations. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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-loading the core purpose ('Machine-readable install and operating instructions for AI agents') before adding usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential usage context: when to call it and a special feature (privacy_mode). It lacks details on what the manifest contains or how to interpret it, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations covering safety, it is reasonably 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%, meaning the description provides no explanation of the 'client' parameter. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's enum and default. Since the description should compensate for low schema coverage but does not, the parameter semantics are poorly communicated.

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's purpose: it provides machine-readable install and operating instructions for AI agents. It also indicates it should be called first during onboarding, which is a clear directive. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the onboarding context and manifest nature make the purpose distinct enough.

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 explicitly says 'Call first when onboarding,' giving a clear when-to-use signal. It also mentions support for privacy_mode documentation, hinting at a specific use case for read tools. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the manifest's role as an initial reference is implicit.

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