workbuddy_read_result

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

There are no annotations to cover safety or side-effect expectations, so the description carries the full burden. It says the tool 'reads' an artifact, but it does not disclose what is returned, whether the output is truncated, how max_chars affects behavior, or any error conditions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose and the triggering condition.

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 should provide enough context to call the tool correctly. It explains when to call it but leaves key operational details unstated: what an artifact identifier looks like, what the tool returns, and how max_chars should be used.

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 does not compensate. It does not explain what 'artifact' refers to, how to obtain its value, or what 'max_chars' controls beyond the schema's default and bounds.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('plugin-created result artifact'), and a precise trigger ('when its short preview was truncated'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are about status, planning, delegation, and usage rather than reading artifacts.

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 provides a clear usage context: use this tool when a short preview was truncated. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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