read_channel

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

The description discloses read-only behavior, ordering (oldest→newest), and that it returns empty when silent. With no annotations, this is good coverage, but it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or the exact structure of returned messages (e.g., fields). Hence a minor gap.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and behavior, the second adds critical usage guidance. Every sentence 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?

The description covers prerequisites and return behavior, but does not detail the content of each message (e.g., fields like text, timestamp, author). Without an output schema, this omission leaves the agent partially informed about what to expect. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that channel_id must come from list_channels and not be guessed, which enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema's terse description.

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 recent messages in a Comms channel, ordered oldest to newest. It explicitly notes it is read-only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like post_to_channel or reply_in_channel. The verb 'read' and resource 'recent messages' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to resolve channel_id with list_channels first and warns against guessing. It also implies usage context: catching up before replying. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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