get_diary

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing that the tool auto-detects the current game from the live connection and that each game has its own diary file. It does not describe potential empty returns, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 concise yet comprehensive. It begins with a clear purpose statement, followed by a structured parameter list with explanations, and ends with additional context about auto-detection and per-game files. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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 tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and when to use it. It explains the diary file structure but does not detail the return format or behavior for missing entries. However, the output schema likely covers the return structure, so the description is adequately complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates thoroughly by explaining each parameter: last_n (default 5, max 50, used when turn/range not specified), turn (single entry), from_turn, and to_turn. It clarifies usage conditions, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default declarations.

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 clearly states the tool reads diary entries for game memory, specifying the verb 'Read' and the resource 'diary entries'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a read-only getter for game memory, which contrasts with action tools like appoint_governor or change_government.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this at the start of a session or after context compaction to restore strategic memory from previous turns.' It also explains auto-detection of the current game. While it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or give when-not-to-use, the context is clear for a read-only memory retrieval tool.

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