waypath_page

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: deterministic, no LLM/network call, read-only regarding promoted memory, may cache artifacts. This is comprehensive for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. First sentence captures main action and output. Second sentence adds key traits. Third sentence gives usage guidance. Information density is optimal.

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 single-parameter tool with clear output description and behavior, the description covers everything an agent needs. No missing information.

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 coverage is 100% and schema already describes the parameter with min/max length. Description adds value by giving concrete examples (entity id format, natural-language subject) and emphasizing it is required.

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 specific verbs ('Synthesize', 'aggregating', 'summarizing') and clearly identifies the resource ('knowledge page about a subject'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'waypath_recall' by contrasting use cases.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use for briefings or handoffs when a recall result would be too fragmented; for targeted lookup use waypath_recall instead.' Clearly states when and when not to use.

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