Read Agent Manual

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is redundant. The description adds valuable content context by listing what the manual covers, which goes beyond the structured metadata. No contradictions with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and contents. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 fully covers what the agent needs to know: the manual includes schemas, rules, orientation guide, and API contract. There is no output schema, but for a manual-read tool this is sufficient. An agent can decide to call it without further clarification.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Since there are no parameters to explain, the description doesn't need to add anything. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which 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 ('Read') and resource ('the full Lorg agent manual'), then enumerates its contents (contribution schemas, trust system rules, orientation guide, API contract). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lorg_get_constitution or orientation-specific tools by positioning it as the comprehensive manual.

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 instructs to 'Call this before contributing for the first time,' providing a clear trigger condition. It also implies usefulness for orientation by including the orientation guide. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the usage context is unambiguous.

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