plur_inject_hybrid

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a hybrid approach that falls back to BM25 if embeddings are unavailable. Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent, and the description aligns with no contradiction.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences, each adding value: hybrid nature, fallback behavior, and best-default recommendation. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema) and presence of annotations, the description adequately covers behavior, fallback, and recommended usage. Could mention output format but not essential.

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% with all parameters described. The description does not add additional parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Hybrid injection — BM25 + embeddings for better context selection' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like plur_inject (simple BM25) and plur_recall_hybrid (hybrid recall) by positioning itself as the default injection method.

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 clearly recommends it as 'Best default for injection', implying preferential use over alternatives. It mentions fallback to BM25, indicating robustness. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to sibling tools.

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