mcp_engram_verify_manifold_integrity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool samples high-CRS blocks, reports gross issues, and is cheap—implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state it has no side effects, what happens on failure, or that it is safe and non-destructive. Lacks explicit safety profile.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second explains method, third gives use cases. Excellent front-loading and efficient use of words.

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 verification tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, method, use cases, and cost implications. It does not describe the return format or error conditions, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap. Almost complete.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions for 'min_crs' and 'sample_size.' The description reaffirms 'Samples high-CRS blocks' but does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

Clearly identifies the tool as a high-level integrity check of the memory manifold, explicitly contrasting with sibling tools (e.g., mcp_engram_verify_behavior, mcp_engram_verify_block_lawfulness). The description uses specific verb 'verify' and resource 'manifold integrity' with practical context.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Designed to be reasonably cheap even on large manifolds' and 'Critical for trustworthy long-sleep / cold-boot scenarios.' This helps the agent decide when to call it, but does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternative tools for more detailed checks.

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