reading_continue

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no mutation warning is needed. The description adds useful stateful behavior by explaining that the tool advances through unread chunks and relies on the most recently read book when no bookId is supplied. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the optional behavior is stated second, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers invocation and the key default behavior. It does not define exactly what "next unread chunk" means in terms of progress state, but the concept is reasonably inferable and the annotations cover the read-only nature. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema only defines bookId as an optional string with no description, so the description carries the semantic burden. It effectively conveys that bookId selects which book to continue and that omitting it falls back to the most recently read book. It could explicitly state that bookId identifies the book, but the intended meaning is clear.

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 a concrete action and resource: "Continue reading from the next unread chunk." It also clarifies the optional bookId scope, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like reading_read_chunk, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 makes the usage context clear: this tool is for resuming reading at the next unread chunk, and it explains the fallback to the most recently read book when bookId is omitted. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended scenario is evident.

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