reqs_batch_embed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses local-only storage, no exfiltration, strict dimension consistency across the call and tracker, refusal of empty/non-number/NaN/infinity values, and the rationale for the self-consistency rule.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each block adds preconditions, validation, or argument semantics. The self-consistency explanation is somewhat verbose but still earns its place by clarifying an otherwise surprising edge case.

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?

With a single parameter and a detailed description covering preconditions, privacy, validation, and dimensionality, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. An output schema exists, so the lack of return-value discussion is not a gap.

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%, but the description maps 'embeddings' to a dict of requirement ID to float vector, which adds meaning beyond the generic object schema. It also clarifies per-vector constraints such as same dimensionality and rejecting NaN/infinity.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('embeddings for multiple requirements'), and the phrase 'multiple... at once' plus the reference to reqs_embed distinguishes this batch tool from the single-embedding sibling.

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?

It states clear preconditions: callers compute vectors themselves, pass finished numbers, and requirement text never reaches the tool. The alternative reqs_embed is referenced, but it does not explicitly say 'use reqs_embed for a single requirement,' so the when-not-to-use guidance is slightly implicit.

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