Read a Claude Design chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only the 'tail' is returned and implies a non-mutating read operation, but it omits behavioral nuances like default limit, chatId defaulting, or whether it affects the active chat state.

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?

The description is three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the action, then gives return semantics and usage context, making every sentence useful.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description provides a good mental model: it states what is returned ('tail of the transcript'), when to use it, and that it is non-destructive. It could be improved by noting that projectId is required, but the schema already covers that.

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. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it references 'tail' implicitly but does not explain how limit or maxChars affect the result.

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 a clear resource ('what Claude Design has said', 'the transcript for one chat'). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by labeling it the 'read side' of the conversation and contrasting it with send_prompt.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'use it after send_prompt, or on its own to catch up on what was discussed in the browser.' This tells when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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