Reads reports from work sessions; by default returns only unread reports and advances the read marker. Set all=true to fetch all reports newest-first up to a limit.
作業の会話からの報告（report）を読む。既定は未読だけ（読んだ印を進める）。all=true で全部を新しい順に limit 件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description usefully discloses ordering (newest-first), the default unread filter, and the limit cap. However, it also states that the call advances a read marker ('読んだ印を進める'), a state mutation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true — conflicting signals about whether calling this changes anything. The primary read nature is consistent, but the cursor side effect is not reconciled with the annotation.
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?
Three short clauses, zero padding, with the core action and the default behavior front-loaded. Every sentence corresponds to a decision the caller has to make.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering, ordering, and count, which is most of what is needed. It omits what a report record contains and whether the marker advances when all=true is used, which matters given the sibling 'report' tool that presumably writes them.
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%, so the description carries the full burden and does it well: it explains that 'all' toggles between unread-only (the default) and everything, that results come newest-first, and that 'limit' bounds the count. Only the interaction between all=true and the read marker, and the limit bound of 500, are left to the schema.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('作業の会話からの報告（report）を読む') and scopes reports to work conversations, which separates it from the session-reading siblings like read_session. It stops short of naming a sibling it must not be confused with (e.g. report vs read_reports), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 explains the selection logic between the two modes — default returns only unread and advances the marker, all=true returns everything newest-first up to limit. That is useful parameter-selection guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use versus alternatives in the sibling set (read_session, list_sessions, report).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.