mangome_query

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 only weakly implies read-only ('Resolve/read') and mentions an allow-list, but says nothing about auth requirements, whether operations mutate state, error/permission failures, or operation-specific behavior across the 16 operations.

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 sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but it is dense jargon rather than front-loaded actionable information. Length is fine; content density is the problem.

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?

For a 16-operation dispatcher with an opaque free-form payload, no annotations, and no operation-level documentation, the description is far too thin. The output schema spares it from explaining return values, but the input-side and behavioral gaps remain severe.

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 description coverage is 0%: the 16-value 'operation' enum and the free-form 'payload' object (additionalProperties: true, anyOf object/null) are completely undocumented. The description says nothing about what payload shape each operation expects, so an agent has no way to construct a valid call.

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 names resources (identity, graph, truth, work state) but 'Resolve/read ... state through an allow-listed query surface' is broad jargon that does not say what any of the 16 enum operations actually do. It doesn't distinguish this multiplexed tool from siblings like mangome_status, mangome_observe, or mangome_verify.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent cannot tell whether to call mangome_query or mangome_status/mangome_observe for a given need; 'allow-listed query surface' is a constraint, not guidance.

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