Air agent manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the returned contents, but it does not contradict the annotations. It provides a moderately useful inventory of what the manifest includes.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the resource name and immediately lists the contained elements. Every item in the list earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only manifest tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential contents comprehensively. It could benefit from noting that the return is a structured object or listing example fields, but the listed items provide enough context for an agent to decide to call it.

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%, with both 'client' and 'privacy_mode' fully explained in the schema (including enums). The description itself does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' with a definite resource ('the wellness-air agent manifest') and enumerates its contents (tool list, supported clients, env vars, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like air_current_reading or air_capabilities, which return different resources.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description lists what is returned, it does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or how this differs from siblings such as air_capabilities or air_quickstart. The agent must infer its role as a general overview.

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