waypath_review_queue

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

Discloses read-only nature ('Read-only snapshot') and no-parameter requirement. Without annotations, description carries burden; it sufficiently conveys safety but could add details about data freshness or access permissions.

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 concise sentences: function, usage guidance, parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, contents, usage context, and follow-up actions.

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 has 0 parameters, description correctly states 'Takes no parameters.' Baseline 4 for no-param tools; no additional semantics needed.

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?

Clearly states it's a read-only snapshot of pending items (promotion candidates, stale pages, contradictions), and distinguishes from sibling tools by naming them as follow-up actions.

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 advises use at start of review/maintenance sessions and names specific alternatives (waypath_review, waypath_refresh_page, waypath_resolve_contradiction).

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