read_discussion_since_me

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial behavior: the exact filter (after your own last post), ordering (oldest first), the reminder line, and the fallback path (opener plus newest five if you never posted). With no output schema, this return-value behavior is exactly what the description needs to carry.

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 tight sentences with the scoping constraint front-loaded before the fallback and the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 tool with no output schema but genuinely non-obvious return semantics, the description covers the filter, ordering, reminder, fallback, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 limit, token, and discussion_id all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how limit interacts with the fallback or the reminder line) beyond what the schema provides.

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 (returning to a discussion thread) and precisely scopes what comes back: only posts after the user's own last post, oldest first. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling read_discussion, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Says exactly when to use it ('when you are coming back to a conversation') and names the alternative it replaces ('Use this instead of read_discussion'). The selection criterion is explicit rather than implied.

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