coachingportal_read

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the return content and the existence of a "numbered" addressing scheme, but says nothing about failure behavior when no page is open, whether the read has side effects, or how large pages are truncated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that puts the verb and resource first and the returned content after the colon. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though slightly terse given it must also convey output shape.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must convey both purpose and return shape — and it does via the enumeration of text, numbered buttons, links, and fields. Missing only edge-case behavior such as reading with no open page or truncation on long pages.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema ("Read only inside this element"). With one optional param and complete schema documentation, the description does not need to repeat it, so the baseline of 3 would be too harsh — the schema does all the work and the description complements it by establishing the numbered-element model that the param refers to.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read the current CoachingPortal page") and enumerates the returned content: text, numbered buttons, links, and fields. That makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like coachingportal_click or coachingportal_type, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

"Current" page implies a page must already be open (via coachingportal_open), which is useful implied context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of which sibling to call when no page exists or after an action like click.

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