plainweave_intent_corpus

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (non-destructive) but omits details like authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens with large result sets. The tool's pagination via limit/offset is implied but not explained.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

The description partially covers the tool's function by naming the resource and linked entities. However, given the presence of an output schema and the lack of parameter documentation, it is moderately complete but could add more detail about the response structure.

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 the description must compensate. It does not mention the two parameters (limit, offset), leaving the agent to rely solely on their names. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'local requirement corpus rows with linked goals and code entities', making the tool's purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like plainweave_requirement_get or plainweave_requirement_search, which may also read requirements.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description lacks context on use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer without support.

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