read_strategic_summary

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

With readOnlyHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: what the summary contains (goals, threats, opportunities, recent decisions, compressed history) and that storage is per-game with a clean slate and no cross-game contamination. It does not say what a first read before any write returns, though the 'clean slate' note implies emptiness.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the call-timing rule, then the payload and scoping notes in descending priority. Four short sentences with no filler, though the per-game scoping sentence could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, and it still summarizes them for orientation. Safety is covered by annotations, scoping is covered by the description, and timing is explicit — an agent has everything needed to call this correctly at the right moment.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly stays silent about arguments rather than inventing them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the current strategic summary') and adds the storage location ('from long-term memory'), which tells an agent this is a persisted-state read rather than a live game query. It never names its write-side sibling write_strategic_summary, so the read/write pairing has to be inferred from the name alone.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this at the start of each turn cycle to re-establish strategic context that may have been lost from the conversation window.' That is a clear condition for use, but no exclusion or alternative is offered (e.g., whether get_strategy_notes or get_diary should be preferred for a narrower question).

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