agy_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that 'since' is a 0-based offset, defines the translate values, and specifies the default output (canonical events as dicts). However, it does not cover error scenarios, event ordering, or rate limits, which would add further transparency.

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, each packed with relevant information and no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter details are presented efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. The description covers parameter behaviors and default output well, but lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools and potential edge cases, leaving minor gaps.

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 properly explains parameter meanings. It clearly defines 'since' as an offset and 'translate' with its enum options, adding value beyond the bare schema. job_id is self-explanatory, so the overall parameter semantics are well covered.

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 opens with 'Read events from a job's event log', a specific verb-resource pairing that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like agy_status or agy_start. The mention of translate formats further specifies the tool's function.

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 states what the tool does but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. The use case is implied by the read-only nature, but there is no direct 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.