validate_manifest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it states validation occurs WITHOUT building, describes the check classes, and gives the return contract including ok iff problems is empty and what manifest_hash fingerprints. No side-effecting or mutating behavior is implied.

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 front-loaded with purpose and distinction, then adds check details, parameter meaning, return contract, and usage order. The density is justified by the tool's validation complexity, and no sentence is filler.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the purpose, sibling distinction, parameter meaning, return shape, and when to call it. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must define the lone parameter, and 'manifest: path to the manifest JSON' supplies the critical missing semantic that this is a filesystem path rather than inline JSON. It could go further on relative-vs-absolute path expectations, but for one required parameter it is substantially compensating.

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 states a specific verb and resource (validate a manifest) and immediately distinguishes it from building via merge_assembly. It also enumerates the concrete structural and cross-reference checks performed, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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 explicitly says 'Run this before merge_assembly to reject a malformed contract before any geometry is built,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects this tool. The 'cheap front door' framing further clarifies the intended early-stage use.

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