tandem_context_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the snapshot is immutable and pinned, the call does not grant execution rights or read files, and mixed/required context 'retains the raw view'. These are valuable safety-adjacent facts. But the phrasing is dense and indirect ('export-consented', 'capsule pointers') and leaves the mutation/read-only nature of paging only implicitly described.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded, which is good, but the remaining lines are terse fragments rather than coherent clauses, and 'Independent review uses its pinned review reader instead' reads as tangential for the common case. The content is small but some of it does not clearly earn its place for an agent picking this tool.

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 needn't be explained, and for a paging tool this description is roughly adequate. But given 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and zero annotations, the description leaves gaps (byte-limit semantics, response shape consequences of view choice) that an agent would need to close by guessing.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add semantics for 'pointer' (capsule pointers), 'view' (raw vs focused, with focused described as optional/task-bound/nonexhaustive/export-consented), and paging via 'Raw paging remains unchanged'. It never explains max_bytes, offset_bytes limits, or the required task_id binding, so coverage is partial rather than full.

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 states a verb and resource ('Page omitted product data from this task's immutable pinned snapshot') but 'omitted product data' is opaque and the tool's actual purpose is only inferable from fragments about capsule pointers and raw/focused views. It hints at sibling separation ('Independent review uses its pinned review reader instead') without clearly naming which sibling this isn't, leaving the agent to guess among 24 siblings.

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?

There is implied guidance ('follow capsule pointers rather than repeatedly loading the whole product') and a negative scope statement ('does not select another context, read files, or grant execution rights'), which helps rule out misuse. However, no sibling tool is named as an alternative, and the conditions under which to choose raw vs focused are only vaguely stated as 'optional, task-bound, nonexhaustive and export-consented'.

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