Verify Release Bytes Against a Manifest

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: hashing is 'fresh', the manifest is JSON, and out-of-root paths are deliberately not resolved. This complements the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two terse sentences front-load the core operation and then add a relevant boundary caveat. There is no repetition, filler, or buried 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers the manifest type, root restriction, and unresolved-path behavior. Return values are already handled by the output schema, so no critical information appears 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?

The only parameter, manifest_path, is fully documented in the schema as 'Absolute path to a manifest inside LIVING_STACK_ALLOWED_ROOTS'. The description mostly restates the root constraint and does not add meaningful new syntax or format details, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 title and description name a specific operation: 'Freshly hash each declared file from a JSON manifest' to verify release bytes. The resource is clear (manifest files under an allowed root), and no sibling tool overlaps with release verification, so it is easily distinguishable.

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 a clear operational boundary: files must be under a 'host-configured allowed root', and paths outside it 'remain unresolved'. It does not name sibling alternatives or state an explicit when-not-to-use rule, but the context is sufficient for a read-only verification tool.

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