read_remoteconnect_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the source location, the effect of latest and max_files, and the shape of the return value including per-object changes, warnings, errors, source references, counts, and ok=false on errors. This is far beyond a minimal statement and gives an agent a solid model of what will happen.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, the second explains the default behavior, the third covers the key option, and the fourth summarizes the return content. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: default source, parameter behavior, return contents, and error signaling. The absence of annotations is mitigated by the description's own safety signal ('Read') and return details. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 for the bare parameter definitions. It does so completely: log_path is explained via the no-log_path default, latest is explained as controlling whether to read only the newest log or aggregate, and max_files is explained as the aggregation limit. Every parameter's semantics are addressed in prose.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read structured RemoteConnect Object Bulk Edit feedback.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like inspect_remoteconnect_bulk_edit_workbook, which targets the workbook itself, and create_remoteconnect_bulk_edit_copy, which creates a copy. The scope is 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 gives concrete guidance on how to invoke the tool: without log_path it reads the newest log, and setting latest=false aggregates up to max_files. This effectively explains the main behavior and configuration options. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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