Read a compact worker conclusion

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

The description transparently reveals it is an alias for agent_read with specific arguments (includeProgressFile:false, stepTail:5, contentChars:2000). It explains the behavioral trait of avoiding large outputs to prevent CLI blockage, providing sufficient context for an agent without annotations.

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?

Two short sentences convey the tool's nature and use case with zero wasted words. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 read operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. It could explicitly state the return value (the conclusion text), but the title and equivalence to agent_read imply it. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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?

Two of three parameters have schema descriptions. The description adds the equivalent call parameters (includeProgressFile:false) but doesn't elaborate beyond defaults. Schema coverage is moderate, and the description provides some context but not extensive value beyond the schema.

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 it reads a compact worker conclusion via a specific parameterization of agent_read. It distinguishes itself from agent_read by being CLI-friendly and avoiding large outputs, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description specifies usage after 'settled' and for quickly giving the main model a conclusion, avoiding progress.md/ledger.md or large steps. While not explicitly listing when not to use it, the context implies it's for lightweight reads, with agent_read as the alternative.

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