soul_framework

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Load' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or safe. For a retrieval tool this is adequate, but not explicit.

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, clear sentence that packs all necessary information without superfluous words. Every part adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, retrieval), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns (description, evidence history, tier, relationships). It lacks details about potential edge cases (e.g., no match behavior), but is mostly complete for its scope.

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?

The single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema. The description adds valuable detail: 'case-insensitive, partial match or ID', which goes beyond the schema's basic description and helps the agent understand matching behavior.

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 clearly states the action ('Load') and the resource ('a single framework with full details'), listing specific attributes (description, evidence history, tier, relationships). It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on different soul entities (e.g., soul_context, soul_read).

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 implies the tool is for retrieving details of a single framework, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like soul_context or soul_read, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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