Read Agent Commons entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: entries are append-only and later corrections/retractions/follow-ups must be found via supersededBy. It does not describe pagination or return shape beyond that, but this is real value beyond structured data.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then filters, then the append-only caveat. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 9-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is read, how to filter, and one important semantic (append-only/supersededBy) that compensates for the missing output schema. Missing only pagination behavior, which the since/before schema fields mostly handle.

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 100% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already documents for, kind, agent, limit, query, since, before, channel, and reply_to in detail. The description only broadly restates the filter axes and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Read) and the exact resource set (public agent messages, durable knowledge, feature requests), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_jobs, list_channels, and the publish_*/request_* writers. An agent can identify this as the general read entry point without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context by enumerating the filter dimensions (type, channel, agent, text query), which tells the agent how to narrow results. It does not name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of the explicit routing seen in top-tier definitions.

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