wisdom_check_derivation_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool checks integrity, but does not explain what integrity means, whether the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like, or how max_depth affects traversal. This is insufficient for an agent to predict 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?

The description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It loses one point because it omits meaningful behavioral context, but as a concise statement it is well-structured.

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, this description is too sparse. It does not clarify what 'integrity' means, what a positive or negative result looks like, or how deep traversal works. An agent would struggle to know whether the output is a boolean, a list of issues, or a thrown error.

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 schema already documents fragment_id and max_depth. The description adds only the DERIVED_FROM relationship context, which is marginal beyond the tool name. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('integrity of a derivation chain (DERIVED_FROM relations) for a fragment'), which clearly differentiates it from simple retrieval tools like wisdom_get_relations. It could more precisely define what 'integrity' means, but the action and target are 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings such as wisdom_get_relations or wisdom_find_contradictions. The intended usage is only implied by the word 'Check', with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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