xreadgroup

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

No annotations present, so description carries full burden. Covers non-blocking vs blocking (with block_ms note), use of '>' for new messages, and return type. Lacks mention of consumer group semantics like message pending status, but overall good disclosure.

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?

Structured with summary, Args, and Returns sections. Not overly verbose but detailed parameter help adds length. Structure is clear, though could be slightly more concise if summary covered basic usage without exhaustive parameter list.

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 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, the description explains all inputs, return type, and key behaviors. Missing error details beyond generic message, but output schema likely covers structure. Sufficient for correct agent usage.

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 has 0% description coverage; description fully documents all 6 parameters in Args, including defaults, types, and special behavior (e.g., block_ms 0 rejected, stream_id '>' for new). Compensates entirely for missing 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?

Description clearly states 'Read entries from a Redis stream using a consumer group', specifying verb, resource, and method. Distinguishes from siblings like xrange (which reads without consumer groups) and other read commands.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the description (consumer group scenario), but no exclusions or contrasts with siblings like xrange or xread are provided.

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