read_room

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing the stateful behavior of returning only previously unseen messages and the effect of `since`. It does not describe the output format or whether reading advances a cursor, but the core non-obvious behavior is clearly exposed.

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 compact sentences deliver both the core purpose and the key behavioral nuance. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, no required parameters, and no annotations or output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, how sequence numbers affect the result, and what behavior to expect on repeated calls.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds value by connecting `since` to the 'continuing from where you left off' model. It clarifies that omitting `since` returns everything not already shown, which goes beyond simply restating 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 uses a specific verb (Read) and resource (messages), and clearly explains the tool's distinctive behavior: it returns everything not already shown unless `since` is passed. This differentiates it from siblings like wait_for_message, which implies blocking for new messages, and post, which is for sending.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: to read messages posted so far and catch up on anything not yet seen. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer the appropriate scenario.

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