plainweave_verification_status_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read (non-destructive) and mentions 'reason codes and evidence freshness'. However, it does not clarify potential permissions required, what 'derived local' implies, or any limitations like caching or freshness guarantees.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no extraneous words. Every word is informative.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks detail about the scope of 'derived local' and the meaning of 'evidence freshness'. The description is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about what exactly is returned beyond the status.

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 coverage is 0% with no description for the 'requirement_id' parameter. The description does not mention the parameter or its role, so it adds no meaning beyond the JSON Schema. Baseline for a single parameter with no coverage is low.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and explicitly names the resource 'derived local verification status', along with specifics 'reason codes' and 'evidence freshness'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'plainweave_verification_status_list' which suggests listing all statuses.

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 use for reading a specific verification status, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'plainweave_verification_status_list' (e.g., to get a single record vs. list). No when-not or explicit context is provided.

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