wm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool is writable and scoped to /root/.local/share/whitemagic/lmdb, which conveys mutability and persistence. However, it does not disclose what happens on invalid routing, how write operations are applied, or what the observable side effects beyond scope are, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact and dense, with each sentence adding a distinct element: identity, mode/scope, parameter usage, and discovery command. It could be better structured with separation of routing versus dispatch, but no sentence is wasted and the key operational details are front-loaded.

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 meta-tool with 59 sub-tools and no output schema, the description covers the essential calling convention and discovery mechanism. It does not explain the output shape since that depends on the routed tool, nor does it mention edge cases such as ambiguous routing or invalid route names. These are notable gaps for an agent that must know what the call will return and how to recover from failures.

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 schema already has 100% coverage, but the description adds meaning beyond the field names by explaining the intended role of each parameter: thought performs TF-IDF NLU auto-routing, route forces a direct tool dispatch, and args passes through arguments. It clarifies the routing model and the relationship between thought and route, which the bare schema does not convey.

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 identifies the tool as a meta-tool exposing a curated surface of 59 tools, with a writable mode and a concrete storage scope. The phrase 'Use thought= for NLU routing... route= for explicit dispatch' makes its dispatcher role clear even though the name 'wm' and missing title are opaque. It lacks sibling differentiation because no siblings are provided, but the resource and behavior are stated specifically enough.

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 provides explicit usage instructions for all three parameters: thought for NLU routing, route for explicit dispatch, and args as passthrough. It also gives concrete command examples and points to 'list tools' for discovery. There is no explicit when-not-to-use because no alternatives are listed, but the guidance is otherwise complete.

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