bus_read

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the read operation and filter options, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether messages are marked as read), return format, pagination behavior, or ordering guarantees.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that covers the core purpose and key filter options without any fluff or repetition.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits how messages are returned, default limits, and behavior when no cursor is given. It focuses on the 'what' but lacks the 'how' and 'when' needed for full contextual understanding.

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?

The description adds meaning by mapping 'recipient' to 'for_me', 'sender' to 'from_sender', and 'tags' to 'tags', and by explaining 'since' as an id cursor. However, it does not clarify the 'limit' parameter semantics, and the schema only describes 'for_me', leaving several parameters under-documented.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Read'), the resource ('messages'), and the core behavior ('newer than an id cursor'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'bus_history' (which likely reads older messages) and 'bus_search' (which searches) by emphasizing cursor-based incremental reading.

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 implies usage for incremental message consumption via an id cursor, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'bus_search' or 'bus_history'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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