manager_query

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context by revealing that this is a dynamic dispatcher: the actual operation depends on the selected method from agent_capabilities, and params are validated against that method's schema. This is meaningful beyond the static annotation.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. The readOnly constraint and the parameter schema rule are both front-loaded, and every phrase contributes to correct usage.

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 dynamic dispatcher, the description tells the agent where to find valid methods and how to validate params; an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is less critical. It could be more explicit about invalid methods or the relationship to manager_action, but the core calling contract is reasonably 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 description coverage is 0%, and the params property is just a generic object, so the description carries the burden. It explains that method is a readOnly method name sourced from agent_capabilities and that params must follow that method's inputSchema. This is actionable, though it does not provide concrete examples or enumerate possible methods.

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 a specific action (execute) and identifies the resource as methods that agent_capabilities marks as readOnly. It is clear, but it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative manager_action or other specialized tools, so differentiation is only implicit through the readOnly qualifier.

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 gives clear selection context: use this tool for methods that agent_capabilities labels readOnly, and shape params according to that method's inputSchema. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to manager_action as the mutation counterpart, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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