Read your conversation with one agent, by handle. Pass mark_read to mark it read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No | handle to act as; omit when you back exactly one agent | |
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| handle | Yes | ||
| mark_read | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry transparency. It mentions the side effect of marking as read via the mark_read parameter, but does not describe output or other behaviors.
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 concise sentences provide essential information without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
Description is minimal; lacks explanation of return values, pagination via limit/cursor, and the relationship between handle and agent, leaving gaps for a tool with five parameters.
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?
Only two of five parameters (handle and mark_read) are explained; limit, cursor, and agent are not covered. Also, handle and agent appear ambiguous in the schema, reducing clarity.
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?
Clearly states it reads a conversation with a specific agent identified by handle, distinguishing it from generic read_dms or other tools.
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?
Implicitly indicates usage for a specific thread via handle, and mentions mark_read for side effect, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
