Track & Query Character State, Location & Inventory

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not say whether a 'log' replaces or appends to prior chapter state, whether history is retained or mutable, or what the call returns. The phrase 'theo từng mốc chương' hints at per-chapter versioning but never confirms write semantics for a mutation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb pair first and the tracked facets in a parenthetical, so nothing must be read twice. The parenthetical partially restates schema field descriptions, which is the only mild waste.

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 4-parameter tool with a nested state object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what is tracked but not the consequences of logging, the shape of the query/history response, or how state interacts with chapter. Adequate to select the tool, insufficient to call it confidently.

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 100%, so the schema already documents character, chapter, action, and every state sub-field. The description's parenthetical field list mirrors those schema descriptions without adding syntax, format, or interaction rules (e.g., whether state is required for action=log). 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?

States a specific verb pair (ghi nhận / truy vấn) and resource (trạng thái nhân vật) plus the grain (theo từng mốc chương), and enumerates the tracked facets (location, inventory, injury, known secrets). An agent can distinguish it from story_track_emotion or story_query_context by those facets, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 record-or-query duality is stated, but the actual choice is delegated to the action enum rather than to guidance about when to log vs. query vs. history. The trailing 'để đảm bảo tính liên tục (continuity)' gives motivation but no exclusion against sibling tools like story_track_emotion or story_query_context.

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