Read new broadcasts since you last checked

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool advances the read cursor as a side effect and that it does not consume broadcasts for other sessions, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the tool name. It does not mention permissions, errors, or idempotency, but for a single-parameter read-with-cursor tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, each carrying distinct information—the return behavior and the cursor side effect plus the non-consuming guarantee. No filler, front-loaded with the core action.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema or annotations, the description explains what is returned (broadcasts newer than last read) and the side effect (cursor advance) plus the non-consuming property. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly; missing details like output format are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for the only parameter ('me'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra semantic beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Return broadcasts newer than your last read') and a unique side effect ('advance your read cursor'). It distinguishes this from sibling read tools like bus_peek (which likely doesn't advance a cursor) and bus_receive by describing per-session cursor behavior, so an agent can identify it correctly.

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 a use case—polling for new broadcasts since a session's last read—and notes that it is non-consuming for other sessions. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings like bus_peek or bus_receive, nor state when to prefer one over the other, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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