get_manifest

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: the `tables` map is paged in FQN order with `total`/`next_cursor`, every other document key arrives only on the first page, and `failed_tables` is filtered by `pattern` like `tables`. It omits the safety profile (read-only implied but unstated) and error/auth behavior, but the pagination semantics are the load-bearing disclosure here.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then usage routing, then pagination mechanics. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the opening clause is syntactically tangled ('its tables and the files each has, not a semantic catalogue of what they mean').

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 and no annotations, the description must convey return shape, and it does: `tables` map, `total`, `next_cursor`, and the first-page-only rule for other keys. Only the safety profile and any error/refresh behavior go unstated for a 3-param read tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, making 3 the correct baseline. The description corroborates rather than extends: it clarifies that `pattern` filters both `tables` and `failed_tables` and that `cursor` is the previous page's `next_cursor`, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb+resource: returns a connection's index of tables and the files each has, and explicitly contrasts itself with a 'semantic catalogue of what they mean' (the get_table_context role). It distinguishes from list_tables too, though the phrase 'the print's index' is unexplained jargon that adds fog rather than precision.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('an index field no other tool projects') and a when-not with a named alternative plus its condition: 'for table names, row counts and staleness, list_tables with detail: true is shorter and already judges each table's freshness.' An agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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