wander

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does explain the core algorithm (random walk, temperature-based sampling). It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether exploration mutates memory state, or what the returned walk contains.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose first and the algorithm detail second. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 five-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description gives the high-level operation but fails to state what the returned walk looks like or what side effects, if any, occur. It is usable but leaves the invocation contract partially open.

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 all five parameters have descriptions, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline 3.

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 action ('Explore'), a concrete resource ('memory space'), and a method ('random walk'), which is enough to distinguish it from targeted retrieval siblings such as recall or nearby. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The temperature sentence gives an implied use case: choose higher temperature for broader exploration and lower for focused exploitation. However, it never explains when to prefer wander over recall, nearby, or journey, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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