list_manifest

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

With no annotations available, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'List' without explaining the nature of manifest entries, return format, pagination, or any side effects. The absence of such details leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 starts with the verb and includes the key resource and scope. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with no output schema. It does not indicate what the returned list contains (e.g., entry names, hashes, timestamps) or how the result relates to the investigation. The lack of return value information leaves the tool contextually incomplete.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description offers no additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 lists archive manifest entries for the investigation. The verb 'List' and noun 'archive manifest entries' are specific, and the scope 'for the investigation' distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_manifest and debug_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_manifest or debug_manifest. There is no mention of preferred contexts, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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