read_all

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses a side effect: the list is left scrolled to the end afterwards, which is a real state change an agent must account for. However, it omits what happens when max_scrolls is reached (truncated/partial results?), whether the read can fail or time out on endless lists, and any cost or rate implications beyond 'cheaper'.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the cost comparison, then the side effect. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys outcome, ordering, cost benefit, and post-state. The remaining gap is the interaction between max_scrolls and result completeness, plus the shape of the returned entries, which keeps it from a 5.

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 50%: index and serial are documented, while direction and max_scrolls are not. The description doesn't compensate—it never mentions direction or explains that max_scrolls (default 20, cap 50) bounds how far it scrolls and hence whether the returned list is complete. Baseline 3 fits given the partial schema coverage and marginal added meaning.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read a whole scrollable list or form') and specifies the outcome ('returns every entry it contains, in order'). It implicitly separates itself from step-by-step scrolling, but never explicitly contrasts with siblings that also expose on-screen content, notably get_ui or scroll.

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 gives a clear condition for use: read an entire list/form in one call rather than scrolling repeatedly, which is the key decision an agent faces. There are no explicit exclusions (e.g., don't use on infinite or extremely long lists), so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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