cairn_wander

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the core behavior well: graph walking, preference for weak ties, and the kind of adjacent ideas it surfaces. It also explains the return format (gists) and points to cairn_read for full content, though it omits side-effect, permission, and performance details.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return behavior. Every sentence contributes useful context, and the follow-up guidance about cairn_read is compact and practical.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the traversal concept, use cases, and that results are returned as gists. The main remaining gap is the unexplained k parameter, but the overall calling context is otherwise clear.

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?

The schema describes query and hops, but k is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds conceptual context around querying and wandering but does not compensate for the missing k semantics, leaving one of three parameters unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource: it walks the memory graph outward from a query's best hits, favoring weak ties across topic boundaries. It explicitly distinguishes itself from cairn_fetch and from similarity search, so an agent can identify its unique role without inspecting the 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?

It gives clear usage contexts: brainstorming, being stuck, or being asked for fresh angles. It also positions itself as the creative complement to cairn_fetch and contrasts with similarity search, though it does not explicitly state 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.