huddo_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the returned line format ('#seq msgid | sender_slug (name) | time | text [attachments] [reply_to]'), which is valuable given there is no output schema. However, it omits ordering, pagination behavior beyond the schema, and any auth/identity implications.

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, front-loaded with the core action followed by the output format. The format string is dense but every token is functional; there is no filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description partly compensates by describing the return format. Still missing is context an agent needs to call it well, such as message ordering and how attachments/replies render in practice.

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 documents the semantic roles of 'as', 'room', and 'limit' (including defaults and max). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read recent messages of a room'), which clearly distinguishes it from write siblings like huddo_send and huddo_whisper. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as huddo_send or huddo_members. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read', leaving the agent to infer context.

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