Nourish agent manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context by specifying the type of guidance returned (install, safety, resource, first-call). It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful behavioral insight beyond the structured fields.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity (no output schema, two optional parameters), the description covers the return content adequately but fails to explain the parameters. Without parameter descriptions, an agent might not know how to effectively use the client or response_format options. The description is mostly complete for a simple manifest tool but has a clear gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. However, the tool description does not mention or explain the two parameters (client and response_format). The enums and defaults in the schema provide some implicit meaning, but the description adds no value, leaving the agent to guess the significance of different client options or format choices.

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 a specific verb 'Return' and identifies a clear resource: 'agent-facing install, safety, resource, and first-call guidance'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many sibling tools that deal with food, hydration, goals, etc., by being a meta-tool for agent setup.

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 usage when the agent needs manifest guidance, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. Given the unique nature of the tool among siblings, the usage context is clear but not formally guided.

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