buzz_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that messages are 'recent' and that channel accepts a name or id, but it does not disclose output format, ordering, pagination, limit semantics, or any access constraints.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits limit behavior, ordering, output structure, and does not point to alternative read tools, leaving several operational gaps for the agent.

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 0%, and the description adds real meaning by explaining that 'channel' may be a name or id. It does not add any semantics for 'limit' (e.g., default, max, or interpretation), so compensation is only partial.

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 action ('Read') and object ('recent messages in a channel'), and adds that the channel can be identified by name or id. It is specific enough to distinguish from DM-focused siblings like buzz_dm_read, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 intended use case is implied: if an agent needs recent messages from a channel, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer buzz_search, buzz_attachment_read, or buzz_dm_read.

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