validate_asset_manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful content about what is validated, but discloses nothing about return shape, severity/error reporting, or behavior on malformed manifests. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with the verb first and zero waste. It is terse to the point of being a checklist rather than prose, but every clause carries information.

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 read-only validation tool with no output schema and 0% param coverage, the description is minimally adequate but omits what validation returns (pass/fail, issue list, severity) and any limits such as the 200-asset/400-path caps enforced by the schema. It does not fully carry the burden left by the absent output schema.

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% across 2 params with nested asset fields (path, url, source, license, sha256, bytes, kind), so the description must compensate. It partly does by mapping to semantic dimensions: 'ZIP-relative paths' (path), 'resource origins' (source/url), 'license gaps' (license), 'supplied packaged files' (packagedPaths). However it gives no formats, constraints, or field-level meaning, leaving gaps.

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 (Check) plus the concrete list of validations performed: ZIP-relative paths, duplicate names, supplied packaged files, resource origins, license gaps. This makes it clearly distinguishable from the retrieval-oriented sibling get_asset_manifest. It stops short of naming an alternative or scope boundary, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as review_licensing or check_media_provenance, which overlap with the 'resource origins and license gaps' checks. The description only enumerates what is checked.

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