Read Comms Channel

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important context: the connected member must be a channel member, the return is empty when silent, and channel_id must be resolved via list_channels. These are beyond the annotations and clarify expected behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences, each providing distinct information: what is read, membership requirement, and how to obtain channel_id. No redundancy or filler, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description mentions return contents and empty behavior. The membership requirement and resolution step are covered. It's complete enough for a safe read operation, though ordering beyond 'newest included' could be explicit.

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% for both parameters. The description reinforces channel_id's source (list_channels) and notes limit is optional, which complements the schema's existing descriptions. This adds value rather than merely repeating schema info.

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 a Comms channel's recent messages, specifying the resource ('Comms channel') and action ('read'). It also distinguishes from siblings like list_channels (which lists channels) and post_to_channel (which writes) by noting it returns messages and is read-only.

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 gives explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Resolve channel_id first with list_channels — never guess it.' It also notes the read-only nature and optional limit, but doesn't explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like get_conversation. Still, the resolution instruction is valuable context.

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