Export dry-run manifest

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool performs no build and no writes, and reveals format-specific constraints: isaac_usd is metric-gated and needs an anchor. This gives the agent concrete behavioral expectations that are not visible in the schema alone.

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 compact, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and packs essential constraints (no writes, format list, metric gating) into three sentences without redundancy or filler.

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 dry-run manifest tool, the description covers the core scope: what is returned, the no-write guarantee, supported formats, and gating. It is slightly incomplete in not specifying how the anchor is supplied or clarifying the relationship between source and the isaac_usd requirement, but overall an agent can call this tool correctly in most cases.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful format-level semantics by enumerating the three export formats and flagging that isaac_usd requires an anchor. However, it does not explicitly connect the 'anchor' to the source parameter or explain scan_id, leaving some 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 states exactly what the tool does: it returns a dry-run manifest of what an export WOULD contain, listing file tree, sizes, component status, and zip-route viability. It clearly distinguishes itself from actual export tools by saying 'No build, no writes' and naming the endpoint GET /demo/export/manifest.

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 this is a preview/read-only tool and explicitly says there is no build or write, which tells an agent this is not the tool for performing an export. It does not explicitly name export_prepare as the alternative, but the dry-run framing and endpoint make the intended use clear.

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