read

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds genuinely new behavior: it blocks up to timeout_ms for the first frame, and it surfaces dropped_bytes when the buffer overflows. These are non-obvious traits an agent needs. It stops short of describing frame ordering or what happens on a fully empty buffer.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core behavior front-loaded, followed by the blocking-wait parenthetical and the overflow-report clause. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more of the return shape. It names dropped_bytes but does not describe what a frame contains or how the .openbaud/out full_result fallback (documented only in the schema) interacts with reads. Adequate for invocation, thin for interpreting results.

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 only 25% (only max_inline_bytes is documented in the schema). The description partially compensates by explaining timeout_ms's wait semantics and implying frame-count returns, and the overflow reporting relates to buffer behavior. However max_frames and session_id carry no added meaning, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 with scope: 'returns frames received since your previous read', plus the cursor-based semantics. This is much more than a restatement of the name 'read'. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like stream_poll or capture_frames, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

Usage is implied by the cursor semantics ('since your previous read') and the blocking behavior, which tells the agent this is the incremental-consumption tool. But no when/when-not guidance or named alternative (stream_poll, capture_frames) is given, leaving the selection between the several polling/reading siblings to inference.

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