Read View

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation through the verb 'Read' and output format, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, permissions needed, or error behavior. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise usage tip. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters, the description focuses only on target and session usage. With output schema present, it may be sufficient for basic use, but the many configuration parameters (budget, mainOnly, etc.) are left unexplained, limiting completeness for complex scenarios.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the target parameter relates to session state (omit target for active tab), which is not fully captured in the schema descriptions.

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 the tool returns a readable Markdown view of a target or opened tab, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tb_open or tb_search. The phrase 'for scope checking' adds context, but it could more explicitly contrast with similar tools.

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 provides a clear usage scenario: 'In a session, omit target to use the active opened tab.' This guides when to use the tool in session contexts. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for stateless reads.

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