Chat

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the fallback policy ('approved conclusions first', 'scoped or explicitly requested raw fallback') and the return shape ('answer, provenance, and recallId'). This complements the readOnly/idempotent hints without contradicting them.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior and then states the return value. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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?

The description covers the tool's high-level behavior and return value, but with no output schema and no parameter explanations, an agent cannot fully determine how to use optional parameters or how to request raw fallback. The missing parameter semantics and lack of usage alternatives leave significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the five parameters (question, kind, tags, limit, namespace). The agent is left to infer parameter meaning from names and types alone, which is insufficient for optional parameters like kind, tags, and namespace.

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's function: 'Chat with Pathmark' using approved conclusions first, with raw fallback only when scoped or requested. It names the resource and the key behavior, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ask_memory or recall_memory.

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 phrase 'using approved conclusions first and only scoped or explicitly requested raw fallback' implies a usage policy, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is present but indirect.

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