frank_read

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: read-only, newest-first ordering, hash-chain structure, and limit bound. It adds context about the data contents (prev_hash/hash links) that goes beyond a simple 'read' operation, though it does not mention permissions or 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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: first defines scope and ordering, second points to an alternative, third states constraints and read-only. No redundant information or 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?

For a read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, filtering, limit, and read-only, and directs to frank_verify for integrity. However, it fails to explain the required app_id parameter and the exact return format, which is a notable gap for an agent to fully invoke the tool confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'project' filter and the valid range for 'limit', but entirely omits the required app_id parameter, which is a significant gap. The description adds partial value but not enough to fully replace 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads recent entries from the FRANK governance ledger, with a specific verb ('read') and resource. It also specifies ordering ('newest first') and filtering ('optionally filtered to one project'), distinguishing it from siblings like frank_verify and frank_append.

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 an explicit alternative: 'use frank_verify to check chain integrity rather than eyeballing them', implying this tool is for reading, not verification. It also notes read-only and a limit constraint, but does not fully enumerate all use cases or prerequisites such as the required app_id.

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