get_reading_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies the document or any prerequisites (e.g., document must be open). However, it does detail the return format, which provides some transparency.

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 description is concise, with two sentences for purpose and parameter, plus a clear return format in a code block. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 description includes the output schema, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that a document must be open for the tool to work, nor does it mention any error conditions. For a simple estimation tool, it is mostly complete but misses key context.

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?

The input schema has one parameter with a default. The description adds meaning by explaining 'words_per_minute: Assumed reading speed (default 200 wpm)' and describes the return value. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by explaining the parameter's purpose.

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 clearly states 'Estimate reading time for the open document', specifying the verb 'estimate' and resource 'reading time' for the open document. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_word_count, which counts words but does not compute reading time.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives. While it is clear that it estimates reading time, there is no mention of when to prefer it over other tools like get_word_count or when a document must be open.

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