frank_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this by saying 'Read-only.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: newest-first ordering, optional project filtering, per-entry prev_hash/hash links, and the limit range 1–500. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, ordering and filter, hash-link behavior with a routing pointer, limit constraint, and read-only confirmation. The description is front-loaded with the core action and remains scannable without filler.

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 simple read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete: it sets return expectations by mentioning per-entry hash links and newest-first ordering, and gives the limit constraint. The main gap is the unexplained required `app_id`, which prevents full self-contained completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains two of the three parameters: `project` enables optional filtering and `limit` must be 1–500. However, the required `app_id` parameter is entirely unexplained in both the schema and description, leaving an important semantic gap.

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 and resource: 'Read recent entries from the FRANK governance ledger' — the fleet's hash-chained, Postgres-backed audit chain. It also differentiates from siblings by mentioning that frank_verify should be used for integrity checks, making the purpose crisp and non-confusable.

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 explicitly routes the agent to frank_verify when checking chain integrity rather than inspecting hashes manually. It implies this is for reading, not writing, but does not explicitly say 'use frank_append for writes,' so it has clear context without full exclusions.

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