list_manifests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'recent' suggests a time-ordered subset, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, ordering, or pagination. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, object, and purpose efficiently.

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 low-complexity list operation with an output schema present, the description adequately conveys purpose and scope. The term 'recent' is somewhat vague, but given the optional limit parameter and domain context from siblings, no critical information is missing.

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 0%, but the only parameter 'limit' is self-explanatory with a default of 20. The description does not mention the parameter, but the schema's property name and default provide sufficient semantic clarity; little compensation is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'manifests' and adds purpose 'for replay or retargeting'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like replay_manifest, retarget_journal, and get_manifest_detail.

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?

It provides clear context by indicating the tool is for viewing recent manifests in preparation for replay or retargeting operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names make the intended use obvious.

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