reader_start_reading

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well. It frames the output as context, warns that comments are not an unread-reply queue, and explicitly discloses that spoiler boundaries are convention-only and not enforced. It stops short of describing side effects or state changes, but for a read-like tool, the key behavioral caveats are present.

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 two short paragraphs with no filler. It front-loads the return value, then adds essential behavioral caveats about context, comments, and spoiler enforcement. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

The description summarizes what is returned and gives important behavioral conventions, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return fields. However, parameter conventions and sibling routing remain implicit, especially the distinction from reader_get_chapter. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves some selection and invocation details to inference.

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%, and the description does not meaningfully explain book_id or chapter_index. It mentions 'one chapter' but never says which parameter selects the book or the chapter, nor does it specify indexing, bounds, or validation behavior. The parameter names are guessable, but the description adds no real semantic value beyond the schema titles.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: return one chapter plus this agent's journal, pinned context, and previous discussion. This composite return clearly distinguishes it from sibling reader_get_chapter, which presumably returns only a chapter. The verb 'Return' and the explicit scope make the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 name 'start_reading' and the bundled return value imply this is the initial-context tool, but the description never explicitly says when to use it instead of reader_get_chapter or another sibling. The line 'This is context, not an unread-reply queue' provides some usage framing, but it does not give direct alternative guidance. Usage is mostly inferred rather than stated.

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