phabricator_conpherence_read

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It states the tool reads messages (non-destructive) and returns them in reverse chronological order, and names the underlying method. However, it doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by relevant technical context. No unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema and description doesn't describe return value format, which is important for a read operation. It mentions pagination via offset/limit but doesn't explain the structure of results.

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 parameters are already described in detail. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., mentioning that roomID or roomPHID should be provided, though both are optional in schema). Baseline score applies.

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?

Clearly states it reads messages from a Conpherence chat room/thread, with the specific detail of reverse chronological order. Distinguishes from sibling tools like phabricator_conpherence_send and phabricator_conpherence_create.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The mention that it's the only Conduit method returning message content implies it's the correct tool for reading messages, but no alternatives are suggested for other operations.

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