CGM 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 agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read. The description adds content-level context (the manifest's sections) and mentions 'privacy posture,' which is relevant given the privacy_mode parameter, but it discloses no new behavioral traits beyond what the annotations and schema already provide. 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the core purpose first and then lists the manifest's contents. The enumeration is long but every item adds information about what the tool returns. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Complexity is low: both parameters are optional and enum-constrained, so the schema carries most of the parameter burden. There is no output schema, but the description's detailed enumeration of the manifest's sections (tool list, supported clients, env vars, capabilities, etc.) substitutes well for a return-format description. The only minor gap is that the client parameter's effect on the returned content is not spelled out.

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 50%: the privacy_mode parameter is fully documented in the schema (explaining summary/structured/raw and identifier omission), while the client parameter has only an enum with no description. The description's mention of 'supported clients' loosely hints at the client parameter's purpose, but it doesn't elaborate the parameter's effect on output. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves the client parameter's semantics implicit.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('the wellness-cgm-mcp agent manifest'), then enumerates the manifest's contents (tool list, supported clients, env vars, recommended first calls, capabilities, privacy posture, community links). This is precise and distinguishes it from siblings like cgm_capabilities and cgm_quickstart by framing it as the comprehensive self-description artifact.

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 implies this is the entry-point/introspection tool by listing 'recommended first calls' and 'capabilities' as contents, but it never explicitly says when to use this versus the overlapping siblings cgm_capabilities, cgm_quickstart, or cgm_onboarding. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so routing is left to inference.

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