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. It discloses what is validated and the consequence of skipping it (tiers slide, markers on wrong words), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how failures are reported.

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 compact and front-loaded with the gate's purpose, then names the exact checks, the required timing, and the parameter format. 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 one-parameter validation gate with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and parameter format adequately. It does not explain return values or failure handling, but those omissions are minor for an agent that only needs to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this by specifying the expected format: advisor_dir = advisors/{имя}, which tells the agent exactly what path shape to pass.

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 'проверить' and resource 'тир-манифест советника', enumerates the exact checks (region markers, valid tiers, files present), and distinguishes itself from the sibling build_advisor by saying it must be called before it.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: call BEFORE build-advisor. It does not describe when-not to use it or name alternatives beyond build-advisor, but the intended placement in the workflow is clear.

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