mangome_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the tool neither admits nor mutates work (an implied read-only, side-effect-free contract) and that the response is "bounded," but does not define what "bounded" limits, what permissions are needed, or whether any state is touched across the HEALTH/RESTORE/RECOVERY scopes.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally good. However, the brevity is achieved through undefined internal jargon rather than precision, so the terseness costs more clarity than it saves.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. But with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and cryptic scope enum values, an agent lacks the information needed to invoke this tool confidently; the description does not fill any of those gaps.

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%, so both parameters rely entirely on the description, which never mentions them. The five opaque enum values (HEALTH, WORKSPACE, RESTORE, RECOVERY, BOOTSTRAP) and the untyped free-form "payload" object are left completely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess at their meaning.

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 verb and resource ("Return ... status"), which is better than a tautology, but the qualifiers "bounded" and "without admitting or mutating work" are unexplained jargon. Sibling tools like mangome_observe and mangome_query plausibly also return status, and nothing here distinguishes which one to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The phrase "without admitting or mutating work" implies a read-only posture, but that is a behavioral constraint rather than a rule for choosing this tool over mangome_observe, mangome_query, or mangome_verify.

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