Validate Manic source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the need for MANIC_API_KEY (scope: check) and signals that checking is cheap (low cost). While it doesn't explicitly state idempotency or read-only nature, the verb 'validates' and the contrast with rendering imply no side effects. Minor gap but generally transparent.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and requirement. No wasted words. The most critical info (what it does, when to use) appears first. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key requirement. It does not describe the return format of diagnostics (e.g., list of errors with severity), which could be helpful but is not critical for selection. Slightly incomplete but adequate for a straightforward validation 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?

There is only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already states ('Complete .manic source to validate'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 validates '.manic source' against the Manic platform's checker and returns diagnostics. It distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with rendering (which spends credits), making the purpose highly specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance: 'Always check before rendering' because checking is cheap while rendering costs credits. It also instructs to 'Fix every error diagnostic and re-check until clean.' This clearly defines when and why to use the tool, with no ambiguity.

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