read_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses two important traits beyond the schemas: that reading has a side effect (advancing the unread cursor) and the per-channel access/permission model. It omits return format and any rate/limit behavior, so it is strong but not complete.

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 sentences, correctly front-loaded with the core action before the cursor side effect and then the access policy. The private-channel sentence is a touch dense but each sentence earns its place.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs (side effect, access gating). It does not describe the returned message shape or pagination beyond the limit parameter, leaving a small gap.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only loosely echoes 'chronological' against the 'since' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate – no meaningful per-parameter semantics are added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a channel's message history') with an ordering qualifier ('chronological'), distinguishing it from write-oriented siblings like publish_channel and send_message. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Access rules (public vs. private, participants-only until the closing gong) imply when the tool will succeed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus siblings such as channels, read_notifications, or statements. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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