hunt_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Secrets are never logged,' which is a significant privacy guarantee. The verb 'Read' also indicates read-only behavior. However, it does not mention whether authentication is needed, any side effects, or the return format, though those are less critical for a log-read tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read Novelty's persistent hunt memory'), then adds essential context (milestone types and filter) and a security guarantee. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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-only tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, content, filtering, and a security note. It could mention the default limit or explicitly state pagination, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema to define return values.

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 has zero description coverage for both parameters. The description explains 'target' via 'optionally filtered to a target,' but 'limit' is not explicitly described. The word 'recent' hints at limiting entries, and the default of 20 is visible in the schema, but the description does not add explicit semantic detail for 'limit.' Overall, partial compensation for the schema gap.

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 states the tool reads Novelty's persistent hunt memory, with specific verb 'Read' and resource 'persistent hunt memory'. It lists the content categories (recon/hunt/finding/report) and an optional filter, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hunt or recon that perform actions rather than read logs.

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 phrase 'recent milestones' implies this is for reviewing past activity, and the optional target filter suggests use cases like checking history for a specific entity. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context makes it clear this is a read-only retrospective tool versus action-oriented siblings, so usage is implied but not fully explicit.

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