plasticity_design_reference_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying that the tool reads a persisted result and does not start or retry a Codex turn, which is important for avoiding unwanted computation. It stops short of describing error behavior, waiting semantics, or retrieval failure modes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and the key behavioral constraint immediately, making it easy to scan.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and safety annotations already present, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral distinction. However, it omits any explanation of requestId, including where it comes from or what happens when no persisted analysis exists, leaving a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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?

There is one parameter, requestId, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention requestId at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. It only vaguely implies that the identifier refers to a persisted analysis, without explaining format, source, or how to obtain it.

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 a specific verb (Read) and resource (persisted design-reference analysis), making the tool's purpose clear. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it does not start or retry a Codex turn, which separates it from analysis-starting tools, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'without starting or retrying a Codex turn' implies when to use this tool: to retrieve an existing analysis rather than trigger a new one. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose it over siblings like plasticity_analyze_design_reference or plasticity_reference_search_status, leaving routing guidance implied rather than explicit.

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