Read a gaze board

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the side effect of 'remember=true' (persisting synthesis into recall as durable memory), explains the default behavior (latest session), and discloses the grounding-stamp ('stamped with the commit it was grounded in') and future reusability. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context beyond what the schema conveys.

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 sentences, each dense with information but neither redundant nor padded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives parameter usage patterns, and the third explains the remember behavior. It front-loads the primary action and resource, and every clause earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the main output content (notebook, sessions, syntheses, artifacts) and the optional write side effect (remember). It clearly states how to access specific items and what the default view is. Given no output schema, it sufficiently describes return content and behavior for a tool with this complexity.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by explaining the interplay between parameters: what happens with just 'board' (returns board plus latest synthesis), the role of 'session' and 'artifact' (specific vs full content), and the purpose of 'remember' (durable memory with commit stamping). It clarifies defaults and usage scenarios beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('a gaze board'), then enumerates the contents returned: 'its notebook, the flow sessions run against it (with status), their syntheses, and the intermediate artifacts they produced.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the 'remember' parameter's persistence into scratchbook_recall, which sets it apart from pure read tools.

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 provides explicit invocation patterns: 'Call with just board= to see the board plus the latest session's synthesis; add session=<id> for a specific session, or artifact=<name> to read one artifact file's full content. Pass remember=true to persist...' This gives concrete when-to-use guidance for each parameter combination, and references scratchbook_recall as the target for persistence, effectively distinguishing use cases.

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