dsh_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose content filtering (injected app messages, tool calls, thinking are excluded), which is real behavior beyond the schema, but omits ordering, truncation direction when maxMessages is hit, and whether reads have side effects.

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 tight sentences, with the primary scope stated first and the exclusions immediately after. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 or annotations, the description covers content scope and seq-based paging adequately. It leaves result ordering and the semantics of truncation against maxMessages unstated, which is a modest gap for a paginated read.

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%, including the '-1 for the start' convention and the maxMessages default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 precisely scoped resource (caller prompts and assistant text messages of a Session), then narrows it further with explicit content exclusions. An agent can distinguish this from dsh_send/dsh_wait purely from the description.

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 afterSeq-based framing implies a polling/continuation pattern, but the description never says when to prefer this over dsh_wait for new messages, nor does it state prerequisites beyond the schema's sessionId hint. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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