progress_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the lookback window is date-bounded, the output is comparative (diff against the previous session), and it spans multiple data categories. It stops short of noting cost, size, or behavior when no history exists.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then usage, then content, then parameters – a sensible order. The Args block mildly duplicates the schema and the trailing 'Compare it with the plan in the journal' is a useful but slightly loose addendum rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the description still sketches content categories. Both optional parameters are fully described. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against character_status and recent_history, which matters given the overlapping toolset.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely does: it explains 'character' accepts a name or 'Name-Realm', is case-insensitive, and that empty means the most recently saved character; 'days' is the lookback window. It repeats the schema's default value for days, which adds no new meaning, keeping it from a 5.

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 and resource: 'Summarize how a character has progressed lately', followed by an enumeration of what the summary contains (sessions, levels, XP, gold, quests, deaths, deltas since previous session). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like character_status or recent_history, which appear to overlap in scope, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions: 'at the start of a session and whenever the player asks how they are doing', plus a follow-up hint to compare against the journal plan. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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