current_narrative

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it delivers: it discloses the null-return case, the fact that stale text is included in the output, and the review_status/source_issues caveat. 'Inspect' also signals a read-only operation. One minor gap is that it never explicitly states whether the call is side-effect-free, but the overall behavioral profile is unusually well disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded in sentence one, the safety caveat in sentence two, and the sibling differentiation in sentence three. Every sentence earns its place and the structure moves from what-it-does to how-to-use-it-safely to how-it-differs.

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 low-complexity tool (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers the purpose, null behavior, stale-text handling, and trust caveat. The notable gap is the 'scope' parameter, which is entirely unexplained — a real hole since the schema provides no description either. Output schema richness helps offset the lack of return-value detail.

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% for the single 'scope' parameter, so the description must compensate — and it never mentions 'scope' at all. An agent is left guessing what scopes are valid beyond the 'global' default and what effect scope has on the returned narrative. The parameter being optional softens the impact, but the description adds zero semantic value for the one parameter that exists.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Inspect') and a clear resource ('the latest stored narrative'), then pins down exact behavior: it includes stale text and returns null if none exists. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'recall' by explicitly noting that recall withholds stale narrative text by default, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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 gives a concrete caution about when the result should not be trusted outright ('Check review_status and source_issues before using the account as current evidence'), which functions as a when-not-to-use warning. The contrast with 'recall' ('Default recall withholds stale narrative text') implies when each tool is appropriate, though it stops short of an explicit 'use X instead of Y when...' formulation.

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