aamio_read

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the wait semantics (returns immediately or after a delay, max 25 seconds) and the message content (signer, verification, encryption, replay, and the edge case of unknown key with a valid signature). This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 reasonably concise, with the purpose and main behavior in the first sentence, and the message format in the second. While the second sentence is somewhat detailed, it provides necessary information about return content, earning its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by detailing what each message contains (signature, verification, encryption, replay). It also explains the wait behavior completely. The only minor gap is the exact data structure (e.g., list vs. single message), but it's inferable from 'new messages'.

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 single parameter 'wait' is explained in the description: it controls how long to wait for a new message. Since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), this explanation is essential and adequately clarifies the parameter's purpose and constraints.

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 states a specific action (returns new messages) and the resource (inbox and open channels), distinguishing it from sibling tools like aamio_send or aamio_channels. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to read new messages, optionally waiting for them). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer its usage among siblings.

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