eywa_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that without a query it returns the 3 most recent substantial sessions, and with a query it keyword-matches and returns top matches. Default values for parameters are mentioned. It does not explicitly state it's a read-only operation, but retrieval implies non-destructive behavior. The lack of destructive hints is acceptable given the retrieve nature.

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 well-structured with a brief introductory sentence, usage notes, bullet-pointed behaviors, and examples. It is concise without unnecessary elaboration. The examples are helpful. Minor redundancy in the usage guidelines section, but overall efficient.

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 that there is no output schema and only three optional parameters with full schema coverage, the description provides complete guidance on when and how to use the tool. It covers both query and no-query scenarios, default values, and result counts. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without external context.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the behavior difference with and without the query parameter, and by providing examples that illustrate how days_back and max_handoffs affect results. This supplements the schema definitions well.

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 retrieves past session handoffs for context continuity. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'past session handoffs' are specific. The examples further clarify the purpose. While the sibling 'eywa_extract' exists, the description sufficiently distinguishes by focusing on handoffs retrieval.

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 description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Called at session start or when you need context about past work.' It also explains the two main usage modes (no query vs with query) and provides examples. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough.

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