read_chat_range

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a stable page guarantee and the need to reuse next_cursor for subsequent pages, but it does not explain ordering, filtering, or how parameters like limit and compact affect 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?

A single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every word earns its place and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It captures the core pagination concept but leaves most parameter semantics and behavioral details unaddressed. The output schema helps but does not compensate for the missing parameter explanations.

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 0%, and the description only clarifies after/before as a range and hints at cursor reuse. It leaves limit, compact, timezone, chat, and talker unexplained, providing minimal value for most of the 8 parameters.

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 states the tool reads a stable page of chat messages within an explicit [after,before) range. It distinguishes itself from day-based tools like read_chat_day and timeline by emphasizing range-based pagination and cursor reuse.

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?

It provides clear context: use this tool for a stable page in a defined range, with next_cursor for pagination. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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