items_check_manifest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape {ok, problems} and the failure semantics (dangling refs caught before merge), which is genuinely useful, but it omits whether inputs are paths or inline content, error behavior, and any permission/read-only nature. Partial but not complete disclosure.

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?

Single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs the return shape and rationale. Slightly parenthetical with the inline JSON example, but no wasted sentences.

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 two-required-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description gives purpose and return shape but leaves parameter format and error semantics unresolved. Adequate as a minimum viable definition, not complete.

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% and the description never explains the two required parameters. 'manifest' and 'registry' are named in prose but it is not stated whether they are file paths, JSON strings, or handles — a critical ambiguity for calling the tool correctly.

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+resource: checks that every item-reference in a manifest resolves against an items.json registry. It names the exact data shape ({"item":"<id>"}) and the failure mode (dangling refs before a merge), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like items_validate, items_resolve, and validate_manifest.

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?

Implies the usage context (a pre-merge integrity guard) but never explicitly states when to reach for this versus items_validate, items_resolve, or validate_manifest. The 'before a merge' hint gives some routing guidance but no explicit when-not or alternative-naming.

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