Recent Companion Context

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, and the analogy suggests a historical view, but the description does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., initialized companion), what exactly constitutes 'recent events', or any potential side effects. This leaves moderate gaps in transparency.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and it ends with a helpful analogy. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the lack of annotations and no output schema, the description is relatively minimal. It conveys the core purpose but omits parameter semantics and any mention of the return format or behavior when no events are available. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete for a tool with optional parameters.

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%, and the description offers no explanation for the parameters 'cwd' and 'limit'. While 'limit' might be inferred as a count limiter, its exact scope and the role of 'cwd' (whether it scopes the companion context or file system) remain ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses the explicit verb 'Read' and a specific resource ('recent events from the persistent companion'), making the tool's primary function clear. The analogy 'similar to scrolling the Claude Code window' further clarifies the nature of the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like companion_send or companion_reset.

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 analogy provides clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool (to review recent context like scrolling a window), but it stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternative tools. This is clear context without exclusions, fitting a 4.

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