Write mode status

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

'Changes nothing and does not contact the forge' reinforces the read-only profile and, more importantly, warns that this check is local so its result doesn't validate token scopes against the server. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, so the description's real added value is the token-vs-enablement distinction, which it delivers well.

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, both front-loaded: what it reports first, then when to call it. Every clause (including the FORGEJO_TOKEN_WRITE caveat) carries decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 input or output schema, the description carries the full burden and does: it enumerates the reported fields and explains the diagnostic decision tree the agent should follow. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail.

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 a specific verb ('Report') plus the resource ('write-mode status') and then enumerates exactly what is reported: target instance, write-token presence, active flag, minutes remaining. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like enable_write_mode or whoami.

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 when to call it ('before a write to learn whether enable_write_mode is needed') and names the alternative tool. It also covers the dead-end case: no write token means enabling cannot help and the user must set FORGEJO_TOKEN_WRITE.

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