ci.collect_artifact_manifest

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the core behavior and scope, but it does not disclose whether the manifest is returned to the caller, written to disk, or merely logged. The word 'Create' implies a side effect, yet no detail is given about mutation, output destination, or failure behavior.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately states the scope. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 zero-parameter tool this is mostly complete, but there is no output schema and the description does not clarify where the manifest is produced. An agent knows the tool creates a JSON manifest of the artifacts directory, but not whether it gets the manifest in the response or must read it from somewhere afterward.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate because no parameter semantics are needed and the description does not introduce confusion.

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 ('Create'), names the concrete output ('a JSON manifest'), and scopes it precisely ('of files under the MCP artifacts directory'). It clearly states what the tool does and is distinguishable from all sibling tools by its unique output and directory scope.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after a build or before evidence collection. It does not mention any preconditions, intended CI stages, or what makes this tool preferable to other artifact-related tools like verify.collect_evidence or ci.write_github_step_summary.

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