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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation through 'check' and 'surfaces past dead-ends,' and adds account scoping. It does not describe return format or matching semantics, but for a simple check tool the behavioral profile is adequately disclosed.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The instruction to use the tool before a fix is front-loaded, and the second sentence supplies the benefit without fluff or repetition.

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 lightweight check tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly: when to call, what to query, and why it matters. A hint about the return value would round it out, but the absence is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of 'query' by calling it 'the approach/fix/target,' but it adds no new details about the workspace parameter or value formats beyond what the schema already 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 states a specific action—'check whether it has already failed'—against a specific resource ('past failures for this account'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like wyrm_failure_record or wyrm_failure_list by framing the tool as a pre-action validation check rather than a list or mutation.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'BEFORE trying a fix or approach.' It also provides a clear rationale (avoid burning tokens re-deriving known-wrong answers), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools 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.