Validate Manifest

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds significant detail: the exact structural and cross-reference invariants checked, the return shape, and the meaning of manifest_hash for stale-contract detection. No side effects are implied, consistent with readOnlyHint.

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 the non-building/cheap distinction, followed by a dense but useful list of validation rules, return semantics, and a sequencing instruction. Every sentence earns its place; there is no padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by defining the return tuple, the ok-invariant, and the hash behavior. Combined with the parameter meaning and the before-merge_assembly usage note, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call 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?

The schema only says manifest is a string with no description coverage, so the description must compensate. The line 'path to the manifest JSON' provides the operative meaning beyond the schema type, which is sufficient for a single required parameter.

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 ('Validate'), a specific resource ('manifest'), and the key scope distinction: without building it. It positions itself as the 'cheap front door' and cites RFC §11.7, clearly separating it from heavier build or merge operations.

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 to run this before merge_assembly, giving a concrete trigger condition. It frames the tool as the cheap validation front door versus building, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternative validators or when not to use them.

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