plainweave_preflight_facts_get

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

The description discloses that it is a read operation and returns no governance verdict, which is useful. However, without annotations, it fails to mention other behavioral aspects like idempotency, required permissions, or rate limits. The output schema may fill some gaps, but the description adds limited transparency beyond the stated facts.

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 concise with two short sentences. The first sentence introduces the action and resource, and the second adds a key caveat. However, the brevity sacrifices some clarity for completeness.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and high complexity among siblings, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the data scope, parameter usage, or output structure beyond the absence of a verdict. The presence of an output schema helps but does not compensate for the lack of contextual completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameter meanings, but it does not. No parameter names or semantics are mentioned, leaving agents without guidance on how to use the six parameters.

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 reads scoped Plainweave facts for Legis preflight, indicating a read operation on a specific resource. It distinguishes itself by noting it returns no governance verdict, but lacks further specificity on what 'facts' entails.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for Legis preflight' implies a specific context, but no exclusions or comparative guidance against sibling tools are provided.

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