Items Check Manifest

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and closed-world; the description adds the return contract {ok, problems}, the exhaustive 'check every item-reference' behavior, and the purpose of catching dangling refs pre-merge. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile without contradicting it.

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 compact, front-loads the action and return shape, and keeps the rationale in a short second sentence. Some jargon (#140 C1, 'a part is its filename' fragility) is cryptic, but the text is not bloated.

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 read-only checker with no output schema, it includes the return shape, domain-level input semantics, and a concrete usage scenario. The main gap is the exact string format for manifest and registry parameters, but the tool's low complexity and read-only annotations reduce the risk.

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 explain the parameters. It usefully describes manifest as containing {"item":"<id>"} references and registry as an items.json registry, but it does not clarify whether these strings are paths, raw JSON, or registry contents, leaving ambiguity for an agent.

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 names a specific verb ('check') and resource ('every item-reference in a manifest') against an items.json registry, and includes the exact reference shape. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the 'reference-integrity guard' framing makes its role distinct from generic validation tools.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: a dangling item-ref should be caught 'before a merge'. This tells an agent when the check is valuable, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like items_validate or validate_manifest.

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