Inspect Micro export manifest

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the data is 'live' and the manifest is 'not a transactional snapshot,' which helps an agent understand consistency guarantees. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and result are front-loaded, and the caveat is placed second where it reinforces safe interpretation without diluting the main purpose.

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 simple read-only inspection tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool returns, how consistent the data is, and the annotation profile covers safety and side effects.

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 100%, and the single optional 'path' parameter is already fully explained in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read'), a clear resource (the export manifest), and the specific information it returns (resource counts and pagination limits). This distinguishes it from siblings like micro_export_page and micro_status, which are about different resources or actions.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs live export resource counts and pagination limits. It also adds a caveat ('not a transactional snapshot'), warning against relying on it for consistent point-in-time reads. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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