get_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine domain nuance ('NPC values do not follow secret world changes'), but does not explain what 'last observed' means operationally or how branching/campaign state affects the read.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and three fully undocumented required parameters, the description should carry more weight. It never says what the returned 'values' look like, how they are scoped by campaign/branch, or what happens when no knowledge has been observed.

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%, so the schema documents nothing about viewer, campaign_id, or branch_id. The description maps 'viewer' to 'one actor, player, or gm' but leaves campaign_id and branch_id entirely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('last observed values known to one actor, player, or gm'), which pins down the per-viewer knowledge concept. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like get_state or read_canon, whose names overlap heavily with this concept.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_state, read_canon, or read_history, nor any prerequisite or exclusion beyond a passing note about NPCs. The agent must infer the intended context from the name alone.

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