journey

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the SLERP mechanism but leaves a fundamental ambiguity: does 'discovers memories' mean finding existing stored memories near the path, or synthesizing new interpolated vectors, and does it persist anything? No side-effect, ordering, or endpoint-inclusivity behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences totaling roughly 20 words, with the core verb and mechanism front-loaded. It is appropriately tight, though 'semantic space' and 'conceptual path' are mildly redundant phrasings of the same idea.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and side effects but does neither. An agent is left unsure what it receives (interpolated points vs. existing memory records), whether endpoints are included, and how steps/namespace shape the result.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how steps affects the journey or what namespace filters), so it stays at the baseline rather than adding value.

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 names a specific verb (Navigate), a clear resource (semantic space between two memories), and a distinguishing mechanism (spherical interpolation/SLERP). This differentiates it from siblings like nearby (single-point search) or discover_connections, since journey is the only tool focused on the path between two endpoints.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for exploring intermediate concepts between two known memories. However, the description provides no explicit when/when-not guidance and names no alternatives, which matters in a 25-tool suite with similar-looking tools like wander, nearby, and hybrid_recall.

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