get_reading_time

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

No annotations are present, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: it estimates reading time based on word count and an adjustable speed. It clearly describes input and output, but does not specify if it reads from the document or requires it to be open, though 'open document' addresses that.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, a bullet for parameters, and a line for return format. Every part adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the simple tool with one parameter and a clear return structure, the description fully covers the needed context. It explains input, default, and output format without requiring an output schema.

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 parameter 'words_per_minute' is explained in the description as 'Assumed reading speed (default 200 wpm)', adding context beyond the schema's type and default. Schema coverage is 0% but the description compensates effectively.

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 'Estimate reading time for the open document' clearly states the action (estimate) and resource (reading time for the open document). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_word_count' by specifying a derived calculation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_word_count' or 'get_statistics'. Usage is implied by the parameter, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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