Read turns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does real work by disclosing read-only semantics and the isolation model (own turns plus ancestors up to the fork point, siblings never leak), which is a genuinely non-obvious trait. However, it omits what happens when branch_id is null, how the cursor and limit interact, and what include_incomplete or full_text change about the payload.

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 core action and scope before the isolation caveat. Every sentence adds information and nothing is repeated from the schema or 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?

The output schema covers return values, so that burden is lifted, and the visibility model is well explained. But for a 6-parameter paginated read with zero schema descriptions, leaving four parameters undocumented is a significant completeness gap that will cause agents to guess at cursor and paging behavior.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to. Only the branch scoping is discussed; limit, before_cursor, full_text, and include_incomplete are never explained, and the null-branch default is unstated. The phrase "bounded page" vaguely hints at limit/cursor without defining either.

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 ... turns") and adds scope: one bounded page from a specific branch. An agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It never names a sibling such as append_turn or get_story_context to draw the boundary explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: read turns when you want history from a branch. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives like get_story_context for summarized context or append_turn for writing. An agent must infer selection from the verb alone.

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