waypath_recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states read-only behavior ('Does not write to the database') and no network access. Also mentions automatic FTS5 escaping. Could add more detail on concurrency limits or performance expectations, but sufficient for safe invocation.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: functional definition, usage guidance, and behavioral clarification. No redundant or extraneous text. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter hints. It mentions output format ('ranked entries with source, score, and snippet') which is adequate. Could specify result limit or ordering, but not critical.

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 covers the single parameter 'query' with constraints and description. The description adds value by noting automatic token escaping and advising use of specific nouns/project names ('auth service rollout plan' beats 'that thing'), which helps the agent formulate better queries.

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 clearly states the tool performs a 'Read-only hybrid search' over a SQLite memory store using FTS5 and RRF, specifying outputs (ranked entries with source, score, snippet). It distinguishes from sibling waypath_graph_query by noting it is for free-text queries rather than known entity IDs.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'before answering any question that may depend on prior decisions, preferences, or project facts'. Also provides a direct alternative: 'call this instead of waypath_graph_query when you have a free-text query rather than a known entity id'.

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