thunder_human_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: burst scrolling, reading pauses, and idle hand drift signal this is a time-consuming human-simulation routine. But it omits whether it is read-only, what side effects occur on the page, and what it returns, leaving key behavioral questions unanswered.

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, tightly written sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and wastes no words. Every element (burst scroll, pauses, drift) earns 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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should do more. It explains the simulation style but says nothing about what the call produces or how the seconds duration shapes the operation, leaving meaningful gaps for a human-behavior tool.

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 0% and the single 'seconds' parameter (default 12) is never mentioned in the description, even though duration is central to a timed human-simulation routine. The description gives no meaning or units guidance beyond what the bare schema shows.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the current page') plus concrete mechanics (burst scroll, pauses, idle drift). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like thunder_read, thunder_look, or thunder_scroll, and it is ambiguous whether 'read' returns page content or merely simulates human interaction behavior.

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 versus thunder_read, thunder_look, or thunder_scroll, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the intended use case from the name alone.

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