Oura Agent Manifest

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

Annotations already declare safe and idempotent behavior; the description adds that the tool does not call Oura or expose secrets, reinforcing its non-data-access nature, which is valuable context beyond 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Every word adds meaning, and the structure efficiently conveys purpose and constraints.

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 simple purpose (providing manifest guidance), the presence of an output schema, and detailed annotations, the description covers all essential aspects without needing to elaborate on return values or complex behavior.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides zero detail about the two parameters (client and response_format). While enums and defaults give some clue, the agent lacks guidance on how values affect output or which client to choose.

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 provides 'install, runtime and client guidance for AI agents' and explicitly clarifies it does not call Oura or expose secrets, distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely interact with Oura APIs.

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 informs that the tool does not call Oura or expose secrets, which helps the agent avoid using it for data operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-to-use guidance beyond negation.

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