engram_diary_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a safe, non-mutating read and adds a recency notion via 'recent', but says nothing about ordering, pagination, permissions, or behavior when the agent has no entries.

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 no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the specification gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description is the only documentation, yet it omits record ordering, the meaning of last_n, and return shape. For a two-parameter retrieval tool this leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to guess at.

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 never names or explains either parameter. The phrase 'for a specialist agent' loosely maps to the required 'agent' parameter, but 'last_n' and its default of 10 are left entirely undefined in both schema and prose.

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 (recent diary entries) scoped to a specialist agent, which cleanly separates it from the engram_diary_write sibling. It does not explicitly name or rule out the other retrieval siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not mention alternatives such as engram_search, engram_history, or engram_get_drawer, which could plausibly retrieve overlapping content. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read'.

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