read_channel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious side effect — reading advances your unread cursor — and explains access restrictions. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core operation and ordering, the second covers the side effect and access rules. No filler or 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?

The tool is simple enough that the description plus a fully described schema cover what an agent needs to invoke it. The return format is not spelled out, and there is no output schema, but 'read message history' implies the return type. The access rules and cursor side effect help complete the picture.

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%, with all four parameters already documented. The description adds the 'chronological' ordering and unread-cursor side effect but does not add meaning to the parameters themselves beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a channel's message history'), the resource (a channel), and the ordering (chronological). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_message and channels by making the read scope explicit.

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 for when reading is allowed: public channels are open to anyone, private channels only to participants. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the accessibility rule is useful for deciding whether this tool applies in a given context.

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