read_channel

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations by noting that output is bounded, recent, and not gated on semantic completion. This gives the agent a clearer picture of the read semantics.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource while adding the most important behavioral qualifier. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool is simple and annotations cover the safety profile, but there is no output schema and the optional bounded-output parameters are not explained. The description gives enough to select the tool but not quite enough to invoke it optimally without further inference.

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 only 33% because only channel_id is documented. The description says output is 'bounded' but does not explain how the bytes and lines parameters control that bound or when to prefer one over the other. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 ('read'), a specific resource ('recent terminal output from one channel'), and key constraints ('bounded', 'without waiting for semantic completion'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_channels and get_channel, so an agent can understand what this tool does at a glance.

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 phrase 'without waiting for semantic completion' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when recent bounded output is needed immediately rather than waiting for a complete result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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