read

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

The description discloses behavioral details: returns entries 'newest first' with default max_entries=50, and domain-specific filters for role and speaker. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor does it describe error handling or output format. Without annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 very concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear bullet-like format for parameters. Each line serves a purpose with no extraneous text, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 core functionality and parameter usage adequately for a read tool with 5 parameters. It explains ordering and defaults. However, it could be more complete by clarifying how the output is structured (though an output schema exists) and the exact semantics of the 'id' parameter (e.g., unique prefix matching). Overall, it is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 significant meaning to each parameter beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the purpose of domain, id, max_entries, role, and speaker, including domain-specific constraints (e.g., role only for sessions). This compensation is crucial and well-executed.

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 starts with 'Read entries from a domain file.', clearly stating the action and resource. It specifies domain options (sessions, transcripts, notifications) and the tool name 'read' naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search', 'list_domain', etc., which have different verbs and purposes.

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 guidance on when to use 'read' versus alternatives like 'search' or 'list_domain'. The description only explains parameters without contextual advice or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from tool names alone.

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