dsh_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that get can output raw JSONL or condensed flow, and that grep matches keywords in titles. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (likely none), auth requirements, or what happens with invalid actions. The description adds some behavioral context but not deep transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then details the action modes and the raw flag. It packs a lot of information into a few sentences without redundancy. Minor structural awkwardness in the parenthetical about raw, but overall efficient.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the main usage modes and the key behavioral nuance (raw vs condensed). It doesn't describe return format, but the absence of an output schema and the action-based design make the description reasonably complete for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context about how raw and keyword behave per action, which is helpful, but it doesn't go beyond what the schema already provides in terms of parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: to run DSH chat sessions and inspect their history, with actions list, grep, and get. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the DSH domain and the specific actions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other run_* tools like run_codex or run_claude.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use when asked to recall/show what a DSH chat session did.' It also explains the action modes and the raw flag for get. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for DSH session history tasks.

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