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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the reported dimensions (ABI level, rlimit bounds, capability ledger), which the annotations do not convey; it stops short of noting cost, freshness, or snapshot semantics.

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 with no filler; every clause names a distinct reported facet. It is terse and efficient, though the dense jargon (microsecond Landlock, capability ledger) assumes domain familiarity.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of indicating what comes back, and it does so by listing ABI level, rlimit bounds, and capability ledger. For a zero-parameter, read-only status call this is close to sufficient; return shape and format remain unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly does not invent parameters.

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?

Names the resource (Mandala Landlock sandbox) and the specific facets it reports: ABI level, POSIX rlimit bounds, and capability ledger. It is clear what the tool returns, but nothing distinguishes it from nearby siblings like mandala.evaluate, mandala.triage, or gnosis.status.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'Status' — an agent can infer this is a read of current sandbox posture, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no statement of when to prefer mandala.evaluate or gnosis.status instead.

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