generate_chronicle

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It clearly discloses that the output is raw, unfinished material (designated as NOT a finished report) and gives explicit post-processing instructions (weave a story, don't list numbers). It doesn't state side effects like read-only or auth requirements, but 'pull a window' strongly implies a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core function in the first sentence)Skip then the usage trigger, then output guidance. It is a bit long but every sentence adds behavioral or usage value — no filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the return is raw material (events, deltas, curated moments) and instructs on how to present it. It also implies the scope through the 'window' framing and the period parameter. Solid for a narrative-focused tool.

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 already fully describes 'period' and 'focus' with enums and examples, so the description adds little on parameters. The word 'window' in the description is the only additional link to the period parameter.

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 pulls a window of recent history — events, state deltas, and a curated shortlist of dramatic moments — and frames it as raw material for a narrative. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_events or get_kingdom_state, but the emphasis on 'backend-curated dramatic moments' and storytelling purpose gives it a distinct identity.

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?

Provides explicit triggers: use when the operator asks 'what happened while I was away' or when something merits telling without being asked. However, it never says when NOT to use it or names a specific alternative tool, so the exclusion side is missing.

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