manual_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'report', implying read-only, but discloses no side effects, return format, or behavior like whether it modifies state. Minimal behavioral insight.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. However, given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no schema descriptions), it is too brief and leaves critical questions unanswered.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values may be documented, but the description fails to explain how parameters affect output or what 'candidates' means. With 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete.

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% and description does not explain any of the 4 parameters. Without parameter descriptions or contextual hints, the agent cannot understand how to use search_roots, cache_dir, check_online, or timeout.

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 ('report') on specific resources ('local X-Ways manual candidates' and 'offline manual index status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cache_xways_manual' and 'search_xways_manual', though 'candidates' is slightly vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use or not use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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