get_harvest_manifest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals read-only behavior ('Read') and default behavior ('Defaults to display-safe source metadata'). However, it does not explain what 'display-safe' means, what output the caller receives, or whether includeRawSource changes the response structure.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds practical usage detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what 'summary metadata' contains, how includeRawSource affects the result, or what 'display-safe' versus 'raw' means in practice. An agent would likely need to inspect example outputs or guess.

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 compensate. It partially explains redactionMode's purpose and default, but manifestPath is only inferable from its name and includeRawSource is not mentioned at all. The description adds some meaning but leaves significant parameter semantics undocumented.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('summary metadata from a KeynoteHarvestManifest'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like export_keynote_to_pdf and list_harvest_outputs. Even without a title, the purpose is immediately understandable.

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 some parameter-level guidance ('use redactionMode local-debug or raw for local paths') but says nothing about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention siblings or state exclusions, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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