get_diary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: auto-detects current game, each game has its own diary file keyed by civ and random seed. This explains state isolation and persistence beyond what annotations provide.

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 (about 10 lines) and well-structured: single-line purpose, bulleted args, then contextual notes. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are documented separately) and annotations confirm read-only behavior, the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral scoping (auto-detection, per-game). No gaps identified.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains each parameter: last_n (default 5, max 50, used when turn/from_turn/to_turn not specified), turn, from_turn, to_turn. Defaults and usage conditions are clearly stated.

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 explicitly states 'Read diary entries for game memory', clearly identifying the verb (read) and resource (diary entries). This tool is unique among siblings; no other tool handles diary entries, so differentiation is inherent.

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 specific 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 and per-game scoping. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, though none exist.

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