agent-manager.dev documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no safety concern is hidden. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: output is Markdown and the site chrome is removed. It does not describe error behavior for invalid slugs, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the second sentence adds only the input-origin detail that is genuinely useful. Every phrase earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with a rich output schema and sibling tools, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, the input source, and the formatting behavior. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents the slug parameter with an example and minLength. The description adds meaningful extra context by explaining that the slug comes from search_docs or list_doc_pages and may contain slashes, which helps the agent understand valid inputs and how to generate them.

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 names a specific action ('Return one page'), a specific resource ('agent-manager.dev'), and the output format ('Markdown'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_doc_pages and search_docs, which are for discovery rather than fetching a single page.

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 explicitly tells the agent that the slug comes from search_docs or list_doc_pages, providing clear guidance on how to obtain a valid input. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the phrase 'one page' plus the named alternatives make the intended usage context clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering safety. The description adds that the data is read live from GitHub, which conveys freshness and external dependency. It doesn't mention rate limits or network behavior, but this is a simple read-only operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states what is returned, the live source, and the scope of the install commands. No filler or redundant 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 tool is simple, has an output schema to describe return values, and is fully covered by annotations. The description, combined with the schema, provides all information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 100%, and the install_method parameter has a clear enum plus its own description. The tool description itself does not explain the optional filtering behavior, but the schema fully documents it, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return'), names the resource ('newest published release'), and adds distinctive details ('read live from GitHub', 'install command for every package manager'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling documentation and listing tools.

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 makes it clear this tool is for fetching current release information, and none of the sibling tools overlap with that purpose. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous among the siblings.

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

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns every published page's metadata and is explicitly intended for broad orientation. It does not mention pagination or limits, but the output schema covers return shape and readOnlyHint covers safety.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states exactly what is returned, and the second gives the intended usage. No filler or redundant wording.

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 read-only list tool with a fully described optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. The sibling context and annotations cover the remaining selection and safety considerations.

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 optional 'section' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its allowed values, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('every page this site publishes') while naming the exact fields included. It also signals its role versus siblings like get_doc_page and search_docs: it shows the shape of the docs before reading any page.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to see the overall documentation structure before reading a page. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the returned tools run on the developer's own machine over stdio rather than on this server. It also clarifies that the tools are registered per session. This is valuable environmental and execution-model transparency.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds an important environmental caveat. Every sentence contributes useful 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 tool is simple: one optional parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. The description explains what the tool lists, why an agent would call it, and where the listed tools execute. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool 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?

The only parameter, group, is fully documented in the schema with an enum and a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the MCP tools agent-manager registers into every session it starts.' This clearly identifies what is being listed and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_doc_pages and list_supported_agents, which target different resources.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: an agent running inside an agent-manager session may call it to discover tools for spawning, messaging, and waiting on other agents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses what the returned data includes: the command run, where live status comes from, and how resumes work. This adds meaningful behavioral detail without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by useful detail about output contents. The final sentence gives a concrete use case and adds value without 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 optional-id list operation, the description covers output composition, purpose, and the key use case. The schema covers the parameter fully, and the output schema is present, so nothing essential 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?

The single optional parameter is already fully documented in the schema, with an example value like claude or codex. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: returning coding CLIs that ship with working status detection. It also distinguishes this from doc-list and MCP-tool siblings by emphasizing CLIs, command details, status source, and conversation resumption. The direct answer-to-support framing clarifies the tool's role.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to answer 'does agent-manager support X' queries, providing a clear when-to-use signal. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use them, but the context is strong enough for agent selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context about the search scope and that results are summaries tied to get_doc_page, but it does not go deeper into rate limits, pagination, or exact result structure beyond the available output schema.

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 with no filler, and the most important information ('search every page', 'use first when you do not know') is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a complete input schema, an output schema, annotations, and only two simple parameters, the description covers the key operational context: what gets searched, what is returned, and how the result connects to get_doc_page. Nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning but reinforces that 'query' is the key search input; this meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

States a specific verb ('search'), the resource ('every page of agent-manager.dev'), and the fields searched ('title, description and section'). It also explains the return shape (page summaries with slugs), which clearly differentiates it from get_doc_page and list_doc_pages.

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?

Explicitly says to use this first when the agent does not already know which page answers the question, which gives clear when-to-use guidance. It also implies the alternative path by noting the slug get_doc_page takes, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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