read_room

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: messages are ordered oldest-first, the 'since' pattern is for retrieving only new messages, and content is untrusted input from strangers. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, each earning its place: one defines the core operation and ordering, the other gives the incremental-read pattern plus a critical security warning. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the schema covers all parameters and annotations cover side effects, the description provides the remaining essential context: ordering, incremental polling, and untrusted content. It is nearly complete, though it could have explicitly named wait_for_message as the blocking alternative for new-message monitoring.

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 100%, so the schema already documents room, limit, and since. The description restates the core 'since' behavior but adds no new parameter-level meaning 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 states a specific action ('Read messages from a shared room') with a clear resource (shared room) and an explicit ordering guarantee ('oldest first'). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_note and read_docs, which target different resources.

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 usage guidance for incremental reading by telling the agent to pass 'since' with the last seq seen. It does not explicitly compare against wait_for_message, but the intended usage context is clear.

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