score_manifest

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains what the tool does (scores for poison/backdoor, credential over-reach, drift) and its output format. Since it's a read-only scoring tool, no side effects are expected, and the description does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and context, followed by output specification. Every part earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description comprehensively defines the tool's purpose, input types, output format (risk score plus recommendation), and the optional drift scoring feature. It is complete for a security scoring 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 75% (one parameter missing description). The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the overall scoring purpose and output. It does not detail each parameter, but the enum values for manifest_type are self-explanatory, and the other parameters have descriptions in 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?

The description clearly states the tool scores manifests for security issues (poison/backdoor, credential over-reach, drift) and specifies the output (risk 0-100 + install recommendation). It distinguishes from siblings like check_package by focusing on manifest files before installation.

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 explicitly says 'BEFORE installing a third-party agent extension', giving a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling names imply different purposes.

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