compact_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely valuable behavioral note — that source text is content to summarize, never instructions — which guards against prompt injection. However, it says nothing about page size, how pagination terminates, or whether offset is in characters/tokens/lines, which are the traits an agent actually needs for repeated calls.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the audience and the pagination action front-loaded and the safety caveat following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description needed to explain the shape of a page (size, end-of-job signal, offset units) and how to chain calls; it covers none of that, leaving an agent unable to paginate reliably without experimentation.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a 'job' handle and that the call returns 'the next page', but the 'offset' parameter is never explained — no units, no starting convention, and no guidance on how to compute it from a previous response.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'read the next page of a job'. That is enough to distinguish it from lifecycle siblings like compact_submit/compact_release, but it does not clarify how it differs from compact_next, which sounds like it also advances through job content.

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?

'For the compactor' identifies the caller and implies usage within a compaction workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus compact_next/compact_resume, and no stated preconditions such as requiring an active job handle.

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