tmf_readers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses partial coverage, that cache freshness does not imply correctness, that source is authoritative, and that stale results should degrade to source. It does not, however, cover pagination, permissions, or result size limits.

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?

Extremely dense and front-loaded: one core sentence establishes the action and keys, and the trailing caveats about coverage and staleness each carry distinct, non-redundant information. No filler.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important epistemic caveats (partial coverage, stale vs correct, ambiguous candidates) but never describes what a returned 'reader' entry looks like or how ambiguity is presented, leaving a gap an agent calling this blind would notice.

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 must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It explains the role of each ('declaration claim_id or qualname plus optional path'), clarifying that path is optional and that claim_id/qualname are lookup keys, but adds no format, syntax, or mutual-exclusivity details.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List known readers') and names the lookup keys (declaration claim_id or qualname plus optional path). It is distinguishable from sibling tmf_writers by the resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with closely related siblings like tmf_callers or tmf_retrieve.

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 usage through 'ambiguous names return candidates' and 'stale should degrade to source', which effectively tells the agent to fall back to source when freshness is in doubt. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or naming of alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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