cw_surfaces

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It identifies the tool as a reference but does not disclose whether the list is static or live, whether it requires authentication, or any other behavioral trait. The mention of 'what can be read' is a start but insufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core resource description. The second sentence efficiently states the tool's purpose for the agent. No wasted 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the reference returns. It says 'every SONAR UI surface... and what can be read from each,' which hints at the return content, but lacks detail on format or static/live nature. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 states a specific resource (every SONAR UI surface that carries project state) and what it provides (what can be read from each), which distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like cw_probe_state or cw_get_state. The verb is implicit ('reference'), but the intent is clear.

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?

It implies usage ('Reference for writing a probe') but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as cw_probe_state or cw_list_state. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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