pws_diagnose_storyline_attribution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds behavioral insight beyond the annotations: it specifies the exact audit logic (requires two storyline members) and the intended action ('flag likely missing... attribution'). This is useful context, though it doesn't elaborate on output format or what 'flag' concretely entails.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no redundancy. Every phrase adds necessary detail—the resource, the criterion, and the outcome—while remaining readable and front-loaded with the verb. It wastes no words and is appropriately compact for the tool's moderate complexity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value; it only implies via 'flag' that some list of flagged segments is returned, without describing format or content. The 'limit' parameter is also unaddressed, and the meaning of 'recent completed' is unspecified. Given the moderate complexity, the description is adequate but leaves notable gaps a user would need to infer.

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%, and the single 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description at all. The schema provides type, default, min, and max, which helps, but the description must compensate for the low coverage by explaining what the limit applies to—it does not. The parameter name 'limit' is somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool's behavior (limiting the number of segments audited) is only inferable.

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 ('Audit') and a precise resource ('recent completed player-company segments'), then adds clear criteria (contained at least two members of an active or ended storyline) and the deliberate outcome (flag likely missing storyline-history attribution). This fully distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which perform this diagnostic.

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 conveys a clear context: an audit tool for identifying potential attribution gaps in completed segments. It implicitly tells the agent when to invoke it (when investigating storyline-history attribution issues) and the specific criteria involved, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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