read_coach_notes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description correctly spends its words on non-obvious behavior: both parts return with clear headings, and the empty-journal case produces an explicit message rather than a silent failure. It does not describe ordering or size of notes, but that is minor given an output schema 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?

The core purpose and the session-start guidance are front-loaded and earn their place. The trailing 'Args:' block is a docstring artifact that reads as displaced documentation, and its formatting is slightly out of register with the prose above, but it carries real information rather than 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 single-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, nothing essential is missing: what it returns, when to call it, the empty-state behavior, and the fallback tool are all covered. An agent can invoke it correctly without inspecting the schema.

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 must carry the parameter, and it does: accepted formats ('Name-Realm'), case-insensitivity, and the default behavior when left empty (most recently saved character). It stops short of describing ambiguity resolution when a name matches multiple characters.

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 a precisely scoped resource: 'Read the coach's memory: the player notes plus one character's journal.' It names exactly the two artifacts returned, which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like character_status or recent_history that read other data.

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 explicit timing guidance ('at the start of a coaching session, before giving advice') and states the purpose of that timing (to recall preferences, goals, lessons). It also names the counterpart tool and condition for use: if no journal exists, ask for a goal and call save_coach_notes.

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