channel_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the single most surprising behavioral trait: reading does not clear unread, and clearing requires an explicit ack call. It omits other behavioral context such as auth/permission requirements or rate limits, but the critical non-obvious behavior is covered.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then adds the incremental-pull capability, then the ack workflow — a sensible ordering with little wasted text. The switch to another language in the final sentences is a minor consistency cost but the content still 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?

An output schema exists so return-value description is unnecessary, and the description supplies the key behavioral caveat (does not clear unread) plus the ack follow-up, which is what an agent most needs to call this correctly. Completeness is strong, with only minor gaps around permissions/pagination left to structured fields.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds a light conceptual framing for 'since' (incremental pull), but does not extend semantics for 'limit' or 'channel' beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read messages from a channel') and immediately disambiguates from the closely-named sibling channel_read_ack by declaring it is a pure read that does not clear the unread badge. The agent can tell this apart from the ack and unread siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete use condition for the 'since' parameter (incremental pull of only new messages) and states the required follow-up workflow (call channel_read_ack separately to clear the badge), which is genuine when/how guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives like channel_unread, channel_wait, or channel_mentions or stating when not to use this tool.

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