ads_read_many

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that — a single batched round trip and per-name error results rather than an all-or-nothing failure — but says nothing about connection requirements or limits on batch size.

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, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, no filler. The return-shape notation '{name: value | {error}}' is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, and it partly restates what the output schema already defines.

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 re-explained (the description does so anyway). What is missing for correct invocation is the symbol-name format and the connection precondition implied by sibling ads_connect; for a one-parameter batch read that leaves a visible gap.

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?

One parameter ('names') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It conveys that the array holds symbols and roughly what comes back, but never clarifies the expected symbol path format (e.g. 'MAIN.bVar'), which is the main thing an agent would get wrong.

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 several symbols) plus the mechanism (one ADS sum-command), which distinguishes it from the singular ads_read without needing the schema. It does not, however, name the sibling it replaces the way a 5-level description would.

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 batching intent is implied by 'several symbols in one' command, so an agent can infer this is the multi-read variant of ads_read. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of ads_read_raw or ads_io_read as alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g. an active ads_connect) despite ads_connect being a sibling.

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