random_resurface

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

The description fully explains the weighted random selection behavior, which adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. There is no contradiction; the annotation aligns with the non-destructive nature of 'surfacing' items.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add context. Every word is meaningful with no redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, output schema exists, annotations present), the description is fully sufficient. It explains the algorithm, use case, and parameter behavior without missing critical details.

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 single parameter 'n' is already well-described in the schema (coverage 100%) with default, range, and weighting hint. The description repeats this but does not add new technical constraints or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 purpose: surfacing forgotten items from the corpus using weighted randomness based on retrieval frequency. It also provides a specific use case (spaced repetition) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'most_retrieved' by specifying the weighting mechanism.

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 suggests usage for spaced repetition and rediscovery. While it doesn't list alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate scenarios. It could be slightly improved by explicitly contrasting with siblings like 'most_retrieved'.

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