dispatch_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It transparently discloses read-only behavior, error returns ({error: not_found}, {error: not_party_to_dispatch}), and permission semantics (app_id must be from/to/reply_to/orchestrator). It even references issue #242 for context.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/return, usage context, and error/permission details. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary words despite the complexity.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what is returned, error cases, permission model, and usage context. It's complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds rich meaning to both parameters. It explains that dispatch_id is the lookup key and describes app_id's role in permission checking (must be a party to the dispatch). Error conditions tied to each parameter are also specified.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Read one dispatch packet by ID' and enumerates the returned content (meta, status, full assignment.md body). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like dispatch_accept by noting it's how a specialist sees its brief before accepting.

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 usage context: 'Read-only — how a specialist sees its brief before calling dispatch_accept.' It implies when to use (before acceptance) and differentiates from dispatch_accept. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to, but the context is clear enough.

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