record_reads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses this is a recording/mutation step, that it returns `conflicts` immediately when a peer is editing what you read, and why that timing matters. It doesn't cover auth, idempotency, or error behavior, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, the payoff (early conflict detection) second, the operational caveat last. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description explains the tool's role in the coordination loop well. But for a 6-parameter coordination tool with 0% parameter coverage, an agent still lacks semantic grounding on the required and identity 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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only 'declarations you just read' loosely maps to the `reads` payload; repo, repoId, branch, agentId, and projectId receive no explanation anywhere.

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 ('Record declarations you just read') and immediately frames its role in the workflow by naming the sibling it feeds into (claim_intent). An agent can tell this apart from check_collision or claim_intent without opening the 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 explicit routing guidance: 'Normally called by the PostToolUse hook, not by you,' which is a strong when-not-to-call signal. It lacks a stated condition for when an agent should call it manually, but the negative guidance is unusually valuable.

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