object_data_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by noting that unbound channels are included and that reads are anchored to an existing frame, but it says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, or about what happens when the frame does not exist.

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?

One dense sentence with the discovery scope front-loaded before the read detail. Nothing is redundant and no filler is present.

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?

With no output schema and zero schema coverage on six parameters, the description should explain the result shape (channel list versus per-channel values) and how limit/offset/query interact. It covers the conceptual scope well but leaves the actual call mechanics underspecified.

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 six parameters, so the description must carry the load and it largely does not. It maps loosely onto object and frame, but leaves data, query, limit and offset entirely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether query is a channel-name filter or whether data selects a specific channel.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Discover every native data channel on an object' and 'read exact IDs/display names and values at an existing frame.' That is concrete enough to distinguish it from a generic inspect tool, though it never names the sibling it is paired with (object_data_set) to sharpen the read/write contrast.

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 only usage signal is the scoping detail that channels without behavior bindings are included, plus the implicit constraint that the frame must already exist. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no mention of object_data_set as the mutation alternative an agent would otherwise reach for.

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