Get the play journal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the journal contains (passages, choices, back/load events), but it completely omits the fact that the optional 'clear' parameter destructively wipes the journal after reading, and says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or side effects.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core return content is front-loaded, and the usage examples follow immediately, making it easy to skim.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what history is returned, but it misses the critical destructive side effect of the 'clear' parameter and does not describe the returned entry shape or pagination via 'limit'.

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 all three parameters (game_id, clear, limit). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Return this session's action history', and enumerates the content (passages, choices, back/load events). It clearly differentiates the tool's purpose from state-saving or UI-inspection siblings, but never explicitly names an alternative tool it should not be confused with.

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?

It gives three clear usage contexts: summarising a playthrough, resuming a run, and reporting coverage for QA. No when-not-to-use or alternative-tool guidance is provided, but the positive guidance is specific and actionable.

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