plainweave_requirement_dossier_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds a useful behavioral trait: 'No live peer calls are made in P0'. It does not disclose other aspects like authentication needs or side effects, but for a read operation, this partial disclosure is acceptable.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a 'local computed requirement dossier' is, how it differs from other requirement tools, or any usage context. The minimal information leaves the agent underinformed.

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%, and the description does not explain the only parameter 'requirement_id' (e.g., its format or how to find it). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific resource 'local computed requirement dossier'. It also includes a behavioral hint ('No live peer calls') that helps differentiate from sibling tools like plainweave_requirement_get, which likely fetches live data.

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 description implies that this tool is for fast, local reads without network calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., plainweave_requirement_get) or when not to use it.

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