Read one object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral details: the digest mode returns an event type breakdown, activity histogram, and only rare events, and warns that full dossiers can exceed 600 KB. This goes beyond a basic read operation, though it does not mention all limits or output structure.

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 tight sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the detail modes and use cases. No waste, no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the primary behavior and the digest/full distinction well. It does not illustrate how filtering parameters (toYear, fromYear, maxEvents, eventTypes) combine, but the schema covers their meanings, so this is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value to the 'detail' parameter by explaining what digest vs full actually produce and when to use each, exceeding baseline.

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 the history of a single world object as prose, with a specific verb and resource. It implicitly contrasts with siblings like search_objects (which searches), but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It gives clear guidance on when to use 'digest' vs 'full' based on object size, which is useful context. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings like search_objects or world_summary, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative tool names.

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