scan_tool_manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld=false, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the offline, no-network behavior and the accepted input shapes, which annotations do not convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the input-format flexibility. 'Read-only and offline' slightly echoes the annotations, but it is short and earns its place as a scoping cue.

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 an offline audit tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input flexibility and the severity-filtering concept implied by min_severity. It could say a bit more about the nature of the findings returned, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both params and the min_severity enum. The description goes beyond it by enumerating the flexible input forms (JSON-RPC result object, bare list, tools array), clarifying what 'manifest' actually accepts.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Audit a tools/list response that you already have') and scopes it with 'without any network access', which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling scan_repository that presumably reaches out over the network. An agent can select this without opening either schema.

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?

'Use this to check a server you are already connected to' gives a clear conditional for when this tool applies versus a live scan, and 'offline/no network access' reinforces the boundary. It stops short of naming scan_repository as the explicit alternative, so not a full 5.

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