seatpack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the persona is never exposed, and mutable player-authority state is marked rather than trusted. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral disclosure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences totaling about 22 words, with no redundant phrasing. It is compact and front-loaded with the 'privacy-minimized read-only' qualifier, though the first sentence's vagueness slightly detracts from immediate comprehension.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context: it does not explain the input parameter 'ref', provide usage scenarios, or relate to sibling tools. The minimal description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'ref' with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what 'ref' means, leaving the agent to guess whether it is a character ID, a reference, or something else. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 a noun phrase 'character context' without a clear verb, making it ambiguous whether the tool fetches, lists, or computes context. It emphasizes privacy and read-only but does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'snapshot' or 'derive'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for character context needs but does not state when NOT to use it or reference sibling tools like 'qa' or 'stance'.

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