read_diary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation by using the verb 'Read' and explains the content returned (full diary with tasting notes and dial-in history). While it doesn't detail output format or performance, the simple nature of the tool and explicit 'read' make behavior transparent enough.

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 no wasted words. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second adds actionable context (when to call it and what it provides). Information is front-loaded and efficiently delivered.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, timing, and content of the result. Given the low complexity, nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty schema. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description focuses on purpose rather than parameter details, which are unnecessary here.

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 ('Read the full espresso shot diary') and explains what it provides ('past shots, tasting notes, and dial-in history'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_shot_history or search_history, but the 'full diary' phrasing implies a broader scope, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 clearly tells when to use it ('Call this at the start of a session') and why ('to recall past shots, tasting notes, and dial-in history'). It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is specific and helpful.

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