coros_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety traits. It adds a meaningful behavioral note: 'The schema stays stable while server-side operations evolve,' indicating the tool is a stable interface to dynamic operations. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, tightly packed with essential information. The usage condition is front-loaded, and the invocation steps are stated efficiently. No redundant words or 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 generic dispatcher, the description covers the essential context: when to use, how to use, and a note on stability. The absence of an output schema is acceptable since the response depends on the dynamic operation, and the description directs the agent to coros_capabilities for operation details. It doesn't address error handling, but that's minor given the tool's simplicity and the coverage provided by 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by directing the agent to call coros_capabilities first to obtain the operation name and input object, which effectively explains how to fill the parameters. It also implies that the input object is operation-specific. While it doesn't detail the input structure, the guidance to discover it via coros_capabilities is a meaningful compensation.

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 its purpose: to be used when a specific COROS read-only tool is absent from an older chat. It explicitly identifies itself as a fallback dispatcher, distinguishing it from the many specific read-only sibling tools. The verb 'use' and the condition 'when a specific COROS read-only tool is absent' make the role unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when a specific COROS read-only tool is absent from an older chat') and provides a clear usage sequence: 'Call coros_capabilities first, then pass its operation name and input object.' This is actionable and leaves no room for ambiguity about invocation order.

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