maid_list_manifests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains result categories (created_by, edited_by, read_by) but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a read-only listing tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 concise (about 10 lines) and well-structured with headings for purpose, usage, result categories, tips, and arguments. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a list tool: it explains what the tool returns (ListManifestsResult) and categorizes results. The presence of an output schema is acknowledged. However, it could mention pagination or handling of missing files.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section adds brief but sufficient meaning: 'file_path: Path to the file to check' and 'manifest_dir: Directory containing manifests (default: manifests)'. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 'List manifests that reference a file', specifying both the action (list) and the resource (manifests referencing a file). This is distinct from sibling tools like maid_files or maid_validate, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

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 provides explicit 'When to use' bullets covering before editing, understanding history, and planning edits. While it does not state when NOT to use or name specific alternatives, the context is clear and helpful for an agent.

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