Polar Agent Manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them by asserting it does not call the Polar API and does not expose secrets, which is a meaningful assurance for an install/guidance endpoint.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the positive scope followed by the negative guarantee. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, but the two input parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, and the tool's relationship to the overlapping guidance siblings is left implicit. 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?

Both parameters (client and response_format) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions neither. With enums present but no documented meaning or effect of choosing e.g. 'claude' vs 'generic', or markdown vs json, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the resource as machine-readable install/runtime/client guidance, which is more specific than the name alone, but it never states plainly what the tool returns or how it differs from close siblings like polar_quickstart, polar_capabilities, or polar_onboarding. An agent cannot tell from the text why it would pick this over those.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the many sibling tools (quickstart, capabilities, onboarding) that plausibly overlap with this one. The only guidance is a negative statement about what it does not do.

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