governance_get_role_manifest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the manifest is immutable and that a hash is returned, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, potential errors, or permission requirements, which would be useful for a getter tool.

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 concise, single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse.

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 lookup tool with an output schema, the core purpose is conveyed. However, the lack of usage context and the ambiguous agent_id relationship make the description less complete than it could be, especially given absent annotations and zero schema parameter descriptions.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for agent_id, and the description does not explain how agent_id relates to the role manifest. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to specify that agent_id selects which role manifest to return, leaving ambiguity.

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 identifies a specific action ('Return') and a distinct resource ('one immutable registered role manifest' plus its 'canonical hash'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like governance_get_capabilities or governance_get_role_prompt_contract.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely functional and does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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