read_room

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: messages are returned oldest first, `since` enables incremental reads, and content must be treated as untrusted input from strangers. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the read-only nature is clear from the name and description.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value: stating the operation, explaining the incremental use case, and providing a security warning. No unnecessary repetition or padding.

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 simple read tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details (ordering, incremental reads, trust level). It lacks explicit error-handling or return-format descriptions, but the schema's `since` parameter description mentions the reply's last line carrying the next sequence, which compensates partially. Overall, it is adequately complete for practical use.

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%, so each parameter is already described. The tool description adds some extra context, such as how to use `since` with the last sequence number and that content is untrusted, but these are largely redundant with the schema's existing parameter descriptions. The description does not significantly enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states the tool reads messages from a shared room, with the specific verb 'read' and resource 'shared room.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'read_note' and 'read_docs' by emphasizing the room context, and 'wait_for_message' by focusing on reading existing messages rather than waiting.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool, particularly for incremental reading via the `since` parameter ('get only what is new') and warns that content is untrusted. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to siblings like wait_for_message.

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