ass_reading_speed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavior burden, and it does disclose a real quirk: cps is None when the line has no duration and 0.0 when it has no text. Beyond that it says nothing about read-only status, error behavior for an out-of-range index, or how the default null doc_id resolves (presumably the active document), leaving meaningful gaps.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by compact Args and Returns sections. The Returns field list is long and largely mirrors the output schema, but it is structured and readable with no filler prose.

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?

For a small read-style tool with only two parameters (one required) and an existing output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly: purpose, parameter roles, and the full return shape are all present. The only omissions are the doc_id null-default semantics and error behavior, which are minor at this complexity.

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 does define index as a 0-based line index and doc_id as a document id, which is genuinely additive. However, the meaning of the null default for doc_id (active document?) is never explained, so compensation is only partial for the required and optional params.

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 first sentence names the specific quantity produced ('Reading speed of a single line') with an implicit compute verb and a precise scope (one line). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never contrasts itself with the closely related sibling ass_cps (characters per second) or ass_get_line, so an agent must infer which to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus ass_cps, ass_get_line, or ass_stats, and no prerequisites stated (e.g., that the document must be open or what happens with the null doc_id). The Args/Returns blocks describe mechanics only, not selection criteria.

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