timeline_agent_manifest

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

Annotations already provide safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive). The description adds that it contains rules and policies, which is consistent. It doesn't detail behavioral nuances like rate limits or auth, but for a read-only manifest, this is adequate.

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 sentences with no waste. The first sentence lists key contents, the second gives usage instruction. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 manifest tool with no parameters and safe annotations, the description covers the main aspects. It doesn't specify output format (e.g., text or JSON), but the contents are listed sufficiently for an agent to understand what to expect.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description need not provide parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which compensates for lack of output schema.

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 'rules of the corpus' including specific components like safe language, citation policy, and raw data endpoints. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the first call to get an overview.

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 this first,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context of sibling tools makes it obvious this is introductory.

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