ue_manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context and it does: auto-discovery of the manifest when `path` is empty, pagination via offset/limit, and the truncation signal `has_more`. It says nothing about behavior when no manifest is found, which is the main remaining gap.

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 purpose and its validation use case are front-loaded, followed by a compact Args block where each line adds information. It is slightly longer than needed because the preamble and the Args section partly restate the same concepts.

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, five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers discovery, filtering, and pagination well enough to call it correctly. What it omits is the shape of the result (e.g. whether it returns paths plus counts) and failure behavior, which an agent would want given there is no 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%, so the description must carry all five parameters – and it does, explaining that an empty `path` triggers auto-discovery, that `game_dir` is only used in that case, that `pattern` is a path-substring filter, and that offset/limit are paging controls. This fully compensates for the empty 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 states a specific verb and resource (read the UE packaging manifest `Manifest_*Files*.txt`) and explains its role as the ground truth of which files should exist. It never names a sibling, but the pak/utoc validation framing implicitly separates it from the other `ue_*` tools.

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?

It gives a clear use case – verifying file lists parsed out of pak/utoc – which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. `ue_list_entries`), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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