plainweave_wardline_peer_facts_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('Read'), lists the types of facts returned, and explicitly states it does not run scans or emit verdicts. This provides good behavioral context beyond a simple 'readonly' hint.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and data scope, the second clarifies what it does not do. No unnecessary words.

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's low complexity (two optional pagination parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately explains the type of data returned and the tool's non-destructive nature. It could mention pagination behavior or explicitly differentiate from siblings, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 mention the parameters (limit and offset). As a result, it adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides (types and defaults). While the parameters are simple pagination fields, the description should have compensated for the low coverage.

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 'Read local Wardline findings as advisory peer facts' with specific categories enumerated (active/waived/baselined/judged, defect/non-defect, resolved-or-unseen). It also clarifies what it does not do ('Runs no scan and emits no verdict'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that may perform scans or emit verdicts.

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 provides context for when to use the tool ('Read local Wardline findings') and what it does not do ('Runs no scan and emits no verdict'), which implies usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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