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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that traces accumulate, surface as trace_count in traverse() output, and boost scoring in consult(). What it omits is anything about permissions, idempotency (does re-recording the same path duplicate?), or immediate return behavior.

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?

Four sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what the tool is before moving to the save_crossing contrast and downstream effects. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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?

For a write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavior — accumulation and downstream scoring effects on other tools. The remaining gap is the immediate response shape, which matters less here since the effects are described.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with names, types, and requiredness. The description only loosely reinforces two of them ('just the path and what kind of work it helped with') without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Record a traversal path') and immediately scopes it with 'as useful for a problem type.' It explicitly positions itself against the sibling save_crossing, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (save_crossing) and the distinguishing condition ('no synthesized insight required'), which gives clear selection guidance. It stops short of an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the contrast with save_crossing effectively implies it.

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