plainweave_intent_orphans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'This tool is read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects such as return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description still lacks detail.

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 very short at two sentences, but this brevity sacrifices necessary information. While there is no wasted text, the description is not optimally front-loaded; it immediately states the purpose but omits parameter and usage details. It earns its place but could be more efficient by integrating key param context.

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 is incomplete for a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. It fails to explain the meaning of 'level', pagination via limit/offset, or what the output contains. Given the tool's complexity (listing filtered graph nodes), the description should include at least basic usage context.

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 explain parameters. However, it mentions none of the three parameters (level, limit, offset). The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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 tool lists 'local intent graph nodes with no upward justification edge', which is a specific and distinct resource. The verb 'List' is precise, and the scope differentiates it from sibling tools like plainweave_intent_corpus or plainweave_intent_trace.

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 alternatives. The description only states what the tool does and that it is read-only, without mentioning context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools are listed but not differentiated.

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