Read Amp thread

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning support for tail reads, tool-output filtering, pagination, and metadata mode. It does not mention any side effects or failure modes, but these are not expected for a read-only tool.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It avoids restating the schema or including irrelevant details, making it highly concise and scannable.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and salient features, but it does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., text vs. JSON). However, the schema already details parameter behavior, and the description's feature list gives sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It is nearly complete for a read tool with good annotations.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into named features (tail reads, tool-output filtering, pagination, metadata) that map to offset, include_tool_outputs, limit, and mode, respectively. This helps the agent infer parameter usage without reading the full schema.

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 reads an Amp coding-agent thread, with a specific verb (Read) and resource (Amp coding-agent thread). It also lists the accepted reference formats (ID, @T-… mention, URL) and key capabilities, making the purpose unambiguous even without sibling tools.

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 implies usage from the tool name and context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. With no sibling tools listed, there is no exclusionary guidance. The intended use is clear but not explicitly spelled out.

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