cnki_co_read

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

The description is transparent about side effects: it states it is a read operation performed in the background and explicitly notes it will not switch the user's window focus. This assures safe usage with no destructive actions, and no annotations contradict this behavior.

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 concise and well-structured, using a bullet-like list to clearly present the three possible return types. It avoids unnecessary details and is easy for an agent to parse and act upon.

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 description provides sufficient context for typical usage, including return types, default tab behavior, and the background nature. It does not address edge cases like invalid tab indexes or unrecognized page types, but these are not critical for an agent's effective use of the tool.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (index with default current tab, max_chars with default 6000). The description does not add extra semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 function: to read the content of a specified tab (default current tab) in a collaborative browser, and it explicitly lists the structured return formats for different page types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting it is a background operation that does not switch the user's focus.

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 a strong differentiator—it operates in the background without changing focus—and indicates it reads from a tab, which implicitly guides when to use it (e.g., to extract content while keeping the user's view unchanged). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cnki_co_switch or cnki_co_click.

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