omni_map_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly promises no mutation and details exactly what aspects of the map/workspace state will be surfaced: document existence, staleness, unwritten living documents, batch presence, ledger op/placed/failed counts, and verification reports. This gives an agent a realistic picture of the tool's read-only behavior and output coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses a colon-led enumeration to pack a lot of useful specificity into a single sentence. It is dense but not wasteful, though the long run-on structure is slightly harder to scan than clearly separated sentences would be.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by naming the categories of status information an agent can expect. It does not explicitly address behavior when no parameter is supplied or the meaning of parameter precedence, but the schema already documents each parameter, and the overall description is sufficient for a read-only status query.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema at 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds broad workspace/map context but provides no additional parameter-level details such as precedence, defaults, or accepted formats, so it neither earns above baseline nor loses credit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Verify a map's context pack and workspace without changing anything,' and then enumerates concrete status checks: documents, stale versions, unwritten living documents, batches, the apply ledger, and verification reports. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from the many sibling map/status tools that are about mutation, scanning, or reports.

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 conveys a clear read-only verification context by saying 'without changing anything' and labels the operation as 'Level 1 verification without the HTTP bridge,' which helps an agent understand when to call it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or list when-not conditions, so some routing decisions are still left to inference.

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