Dated play sessions for a game

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond those annotations by specifying the returned content (notes, tags, durations) and the hierarchical relationship to playthroughs, helping the agent understand the data model.

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?

Two crisp sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and contents, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned and how sessions relate to playthroughs and the journal view. It could mention ordering or date-range behavior, but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 fully documents the 'game' parameter with accepted formats and examples (coverage 100%). The description adds no additional parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (dated play sessions) and the data they contain (when, how long, notes/tags). It distinguishes itself from sibling write tools like log_play_session by emphasizing existing sessions, but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', which keeps it from a perfect 5.

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 contextual hints ('what the journal view is built on') that imply this is for reading session history, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_journal or log_play_session, nor mention any exclusions.

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