get_manv1_api_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the basic behavior (getting capabilities/endpoints) but lacks details about rate limits, authentication requirements, or the exact return format. The simplicity of the tool (no parameters) mitigates the gap, but more context would be helpful.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose. There is no unnecessary information, and every word adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not mention what 'capabilities and endpoints' entails, whether the operation is read-only, or any prerequisites. However, it is sufficient for a straightforward get 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score of 4.

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 'Get MAN V1 API capabilities and endpoints' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (MAN V1 API capabilities and endpoints). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_manv2_api_resource' by specifying the version.

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 implies usage for retrieving MAN V1 API information but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_manv2_api_resource'. No when-not or context-related instructions are given.

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