iptime_read

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description merely reinforces the read-only nature. It adds the useful fact that the operation originates from iptime_list_operations, but it does not provide additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens when parameters are invalid. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core behavior, uses no filler, and earns its place. It is concise without being a tautology.

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 generic read-only dispatcher, the description plus the schema and annotations provide most of what an agent needs: discover operations via list_operations, pass operation and optional params, and rely on the router_id rule from the schema. It could be more complete with an example or a note about return values, but the absence of an output schema lowers the burden.

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?

The schema already documents params and router_id clearly, leaving operation as the main undocumented required parameter. The description compensates partially by indicating the operation value should come from iptime_list_operations, but it does not clarify how params should be shaped for different operations or give any examples.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('a read-only operation from iptime_list_operations'), which precisely identifies what the tool does. The read-only qualifier also helps distinguish it from the mutation and planning sibling tools without needing to inspect each one.

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 gives clear context: this tool executes read-only operations that come from iptime_list_operations. It implicitly tells the agent to use list_operations to discover the operation value first, though it does not explicitly spell out exclusions such as 'for writes, use apply_change'.

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