read_crystal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read' which implies idempotent read, but omits any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response format. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the key parameter implication (detail level).

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values, but it lacks explanation of what a crystal is, what the different detail levels mean, and how to use it in context of sibling tools. The minimalism leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly understand and invoke the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds context for the 'level' parameter by mentioning 'detail level'. However, it does not explain 'cluster_slug' or 'crystal_slug' beyond their names, nor does it define valid level values like 'gist'. Some value added, but 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Read' and the resource 'a specific crystal', and mentions the detail level. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the resource type, though it does not explain what a crystal is relative to other resources.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_briefing or read_cluster_memory. There are no instructions on selection criteria or exclusions.

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