read_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only discloses ordering ('newest first') but omits safety traits (e.g., read-only, destructive actions, permission requirements). For a read tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with key information. However, it is under-specified, missing parameter details and behavioral context.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain parameter behavior (e.g., limit defaults) or error conditions, and doesn't leverage output schema to reduce burden. Incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain parameters. 'limit' and 'channel' are not mentioned, leaving their semantics entirely to the schema alone. No added value.

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 action ('read') and resource ('recent messages on a channel'), and specifies ordering ('newest first'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that send messages or poll inbox.

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 for reading channel messages but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_dm' or 'poll_inbox'. The context of usage is clear but lacks contrast.

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