dispatch_read

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

The description goes well beyond annotations: it enumerates returned fields (meta including from/to app, role, phase, priority; full assignment.md body), documents both error modes (not_found, not_party_to_dispatch), and clarifies the permission model (membership in from_app/to_app/reply_to/orchestrator) with a reference to a bugfix issue. This is transparent and consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation; no contradictions.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose first ('Read one dispatch packet by ID...'), then adds detail on content, read-only property, and error behavior. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence adds information.

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?

Despite low schema coverage and no output schema, the description fully compensates: it describes the returned fields (meta with from/to app, role, phase, priority, plus assignment.md body), both error cases with exact error strings, and the permission model, even citing the issue context. There is nothing an agent needs to know to call this correctly that is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for both app_id and dispatch_id. It does this implicitly: 'app_id' is contextualized via the permission description (from_app, to_app, reply_to, orchestrator) and 'dispatch_id' is the identifier for the packet to readaisl. The error codes also clarify parameter semantics. However, the description doesn't explicitly define each parameter or give format/type expectations beyond 'string', so it's strong but not perfect.

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 states a specific verb (

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?

It clearly explains the tool reads a dispatch by ID and returns its metadata and body, positioning it as the read-before-accept step ('how a specialist sees its brief'), which implies when to use it relative to dispatch_accept. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the context and the error case (not a party to the dispatch) effectively define its intended scope. Loses one point for not naming when-not-to-use versus other read tools.

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