Read Orchestrator context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool reads continuity and may fail, with a specific failure response. It does not detail side effects (though as a read, few are expected) or permissions. The description adequately signals the tool's role and failure mode, but could be more explicit about what 'continuity' entails.

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: first defines purpose, second provides usage guidelines and failure handling. No extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place. The structure is front-loaded with the primary 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?

Given no output schema, the description does not specify the return format. However, it explains that the tool reads 'continuity' to help interpret a turn, which implies the output will contain context. The description is complete enough for the agent to understand the tool's place in the workflow and its behavior on failure. A brief mention of return structure would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with 5 parameters all described. The description adds value beyond the schema by tying the 'q' parameter to the saved turn text and implying the 'limit' and 'compact' parameters are typical for reading. It does not elaborate on 'max_summaries' or 'include_raw', but the schema descriptions are sufficient. The description's workflow context enhances parameter understanding.

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 clearly states 'Reads current UnClick Orchestrator continuity so a seat can interpret a freshly saved turn before acting.' It specifies the action (read), the resource (orchestrator continuity), and the purpose (interpret a saved turn). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing the required workflow and the sibling tool save_conversation_turn.

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 provides explicit when-to-use instructions: 'Use immediately after save_conversation_turn in the required Log -> Read -> Decide -> Reply -> Log reply gate.' It also gives clear fallback behavior on failure: 'If this read fails, say CONTEXT_UNREAD or UNTETHERED instead of guessing...' This guides the agent on proper sequencing and error handling.

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