plasticity_strength_request

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that no Codex run is started or retried and that the request is 'persisted', which is useful side-effect context beyond the annotations, but it does not describe what happens if the requestId does not exist.

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the distinguishing constraint is front-loaded at the end of the verb+resource core. Nothing redundant.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is close to adequate, but with no output schema the agent gets no sense of what a 'request' record returns, and the requestId parameter is left undefined. These are real gaps 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 required parameter (requestId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema documents nothing about it. The description does not explain the identifier's format, origin, or how to obtain it, leaving the sole parameter essentially undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one persisted strength-analysis request'), and adds a scope qualifier ('without starting or retrying Codex') that separates it from a start/retry counterpart. It never names that counterpart explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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 Codex' implies this is the read-only path for inspecting an existing request rather than launching work, which gives decent contextual usage signal. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-to-use or precondition guidance.

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