tape_read_header

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does well: it discloses the exact operational sequence, that the tape is always unloaded afterwards, that data on tape is untouched, and that no confirmation is required. Gaps remain around failure modes (missing tape, busy drive beyond the force param) and expected runtime, but the safety profile is otherwise well covered.

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 front-loaded sentence with the key read-only/no-confirm facts up front and implementation detail consigned to a parenthetical. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the returned data (byte report, printable strings, mt file and block numbers), so the agent knows what comes back. It stops short of describing error conditions or whether slot must be free, which leaves a small gap for a hardware-driven operation.

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 schema already defines both 'slot' and 'force', making 3 the baseline. The description adds no meaning to either parameter itself — the busy-check context it hints at ('the required drive') is only implicit and is actually spelled out in the schema's force description.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Reads the first block of a tape') and then scopes exactly what is captured (bytes, printable strings, mt file/block numbers). The parenthetical also makes clear it performs its own load/rewind/unload sequence, which implicitly separates it from the tape_load and tape_unload siblings.

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 'No confirm needed' clause tells the agent this call needs no approval, which is real usage guidance, and 'Read-only in data terms' signals a safe inspection context. However, it never states when to prefer this over tape_load or the catalog search tools, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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