get_bundle_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists the return fields, making the output transparent. It implies a read-only operation via 'Return' and gives a use case, though it doesn't explicitly state side-effect freedom or auth requirements, which are negligible for a metadata retrieval 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Return the bundle manifest'), and every word contributes value. No filler or repetition.

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 metadata retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return fields and the intended use case. It is complete and self-contained.

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 no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids unnecessary parameter details, as there is nothing to explain.

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 returns the bundle manifest with specific fields (source repo/branch/SHA, build date, chunk count, embedding model). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_docs and get_chunk, which focus on content retrieval rather than metadata.

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?

'Use to cite freshness' provides explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool. The contrast with search/retrieval siblings is implicit but clear. It doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use' or name alternatives, which is a minor gap.

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